Former Mormons Get A Hobby

[BDawg]

I don’t buy that at all. Quinn may be gay but that’s NOT what got him into trouble. look at that whole situation and read what Boyd Packer said. I see an orwellian rewrite of LDS history directed to be more Faith promoting and hoping that controversial doctrines will just “fade away”. I have no problem with BYU staying “LDS” but not at the expense of the truth and there is a BIG difference between a church college and a seminary.

Do you think Quinn’s stuff is really the kind of “objective history” he tries to paint it? One of his books is all about “decoding” statements of early LDS leaders to show that they were ok with homosexuality. Sure.

In any case, I don’t agree with everything Boyd Packer said in that talk, although “Orwellian” is a bit melodramatic, I think. What he was really addressing is the fact that all historians have to wade through boatloads of information and decide which details are “important enough” to include. When they decide to focus undue attention on the negative, it comes out just as unbalanced as if they only focused on the positive. Wouldn’t you say this is the case for Catholic historians, as well as Mormons?

On the other hand, isn’t it inevitable that historians will be influenced by their points of view? That is, wouldn’t (shouldn’t?) a faithful Catholic historian have a different perspective on which details of Catholic history are “important” than an atheist?

of course any dissenting LDS scientists are now ex-LDS.

Really? Tom Murphy was never excommunicated. Simon Southerton was, but he was ex’ed for adultery. He said he was actually really ticked about that, because he wanted them to excommunicate him for heresy. Can you name any other scientists who are supposed to have left the LDS Church over the DNA issue?

I think the best reading of the BoM is inthe context that it was explained originally by the alleged prophet who claimed to have translated it. looking at his writings and sayings as a whole on the subject in my opinion makes LGT very unlikely if it’s in mesoamerica.

That’s interesting. Coming from the opposite perspective, I look at Joseph Smith’s ideas about where the Book of Mormon events occurred (and they seem to have changed over time,) and then read the Book of Mormon. Clearly the Book of Mormon describes a culture that flourished in an area that was only a few hundred miles across. The geography just makes no sense, otherwise. So if JS assumed it all took place over the entire hemisphere, and yet the book clearly implies otherwise, I conclude that JS didn’t write the book.

Likewise, the destruction in 3 Nephi is a PERFECT description of a large pyroclastic eruption. Since JS did not live through such a thing, and wouldn’t have known anyone who did, I conclude that he didn’t write it.

The boM is supposed to be the most correct book on earth and the apostles and first presidency “oracles of the lord” how can something that important be “uninspired”? once again I think you marginalize the original teaching on this subject.

The Pope is supposed to be an infallible guide in issues of faith and morals, and yet Innocent IV could proclaim,

“The podestà or ruler (of the city) is hereby ordered to force all captured heretics to confess and accuse their accomplices by torture which will not imperil life or injure limb, just as thieves and robbers are forced to accuse their accomplices, and to confess their crimes; for these heretics are true thieves, murderers of souls, and robbers of the sacraments of God.” Ad Extirpanda, 1252.

Seems like torture is a very important moral issue. Why would God let the Pope ORDER the torture of heretics to make them confess and accuse others?

I’m sure you have some reason why the bull Ad Extirpanda was not an “infallible” moral ruling, but that’s my point. You don’t think the Pope is infallible for every issue that some might consider “important.”

well the place names are sure interestingly similar to the modern ones. I also find it problematic with cumorah and moroni and the plates to say it was all done in mesoamerica except the final resting place of the plates. the mesoamerican theory also make sit even more obvious the lack of BoM mention of anything that we now know to be characteristic of those pre-Columbian cultures that lived there in large numbers during that time.

That would be interesting to discuss sometime. I’ve never been that big on archaeology, so I probably ought to learn more about it.

typically? when do mormons EVER pray to Jesus?

I suppose when he appears directly to them? I don’t see what the problem is here. Didn’t Jesus say to pray to the Father in his name? Why shouldn’t we do what he said, barring special circumstances?

the holy spirit? for years the D&C claimed he wasn’t even a person. no straw man here. I take primary issue with mormons not worshipping/praying to jesus… that the BoM describes it is just part of my reason for claiming that they have changed over time from trinitarians to henotheists.

The Lectures on Faith were never considered revelations–just lectures. And they were written before JS received the revelation that the Holy Spirit is an individual person (see D&C 130).

Like I said, I’m not disputing the fact that our doctrines have developed over the years. If you believe in continuing revelation, that comes with the territory. But look what you are doing to make the development seem as extreme as possible. You are first taking the most extreme possible reading of the Book of Mormon, even though I pointed out that it never says much specific about HOW the Godhead is one. And then you characterize modern LDS teaching as “henotheistic,” which doesn’t leave much room for the really deep oneness that we actually believe in.

oh i don’t think it’s just that at all. it goes to the very nature of God. an exalted man in an infinite chain of exalted men with parallel chains of exalted siblings vs. ONE eternal God.

To me, Jesus seems to say that we can become one in him and the Father just like he and the Father are one.

“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art** in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.” (John 17:21-22)

they share the same substance. where one is all are. they are that intimately one. not just in purpose but in physical fact.

Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I understand what Catholics mean by “consubstantial.” I just don’t understand how you get that out of John 1.

 

[PattyPryor]

Ya I don’t watch south Park but I did enjoy that episode. The makers of south park used to be Mormon

Also

Why Me you never answered my question and I would like an answer please. Do you still hold your LDS priesthood? Are you able to go to the temple?

 

[PattyPryor]

BDawg- I’m going to be VERY honest. Your posts are getting a little out of hand. You act like we are stupid when really we will never see the Mormon church like you do. Fine if you want to be a member of the LDS faith but don’t go bashing Catholics. It seems to me bring up past Popes and such makes you not even realize the time it was said and the culture.

You really should look up infallibility you don’t know what it really means:shrug:

 

[majick275]

Do you think Quinn’s stuff is really the kind of “objective history” he tries to paint it? One of his books is all about “decoding” statements of early LDS leaders to show that they were ok with homosexuality. Sure.

quinn had some good stuff with early mormonism and the magic world view but he’s kust one of many. I liked Palmer, bushman and compton as well. even though I think they tried too hard to throw in random apologetic material ij order to avoid discipline.

In any case, I don’t agree with everything Boyd Packer said in that talk, although “Orwellian” is a bit melodramatic, I think.

orwellian is pretty accurate. have you read the recent priesthood manuals and compared them with the older church history accounts of those same men? RS rooms with pictures of emma smith. Please …does anyone even know that emma started her own church and rejected temple marriage? do people even realize that JS was a polygamist?

What he was really addressing is the fact that all historians have to wade through boatloads of information and decide which details are “important enough” to include. When they decide to focus undue attention on the negative, it comes out just as unbalanced as if they only focused on the positive.

paul dunn anyone? I think BKP just wants to pretend the “weird stuff” never happened and every day was a miracle for Js.

Wouldn’t you say this is the case for Catholic historians, as well as Mormons?

not the good ones. you see our history is lengthy and full of bad things. if we want to follow God then we can’t gloss over those bad things. we have to learn what the mistakes were so that we don’t repeat them.

On the other hand, isn’t it inevitable that historians will be influenced by their points of view? That is, wouldn’t (shouldn’t?) a faithful Catholic historian have a different perspective on which details of Catholic history are “important” than an atheist?

I don’t agree that is a good thing. I think a “good” catholic historian will warn us of the wrongs just as fervently as they inspire us with the good.

Really? Tom Murphy was never excommunicated. Simon Southerton was, but he was ex’ed for adultery. He said he was actually really ticked about that, because he wanted them to excommunicate him for heresy. Can you name any other scientists who are supposed to have left the LDS Church over the DNA issue?

I thought we were talking about historians. there are many LDS historians but not many DNA specialists with any peer reviewed contributions on this subject. I’m sure Southertons sins makes his science magically disappear right?

That’s interesting. Coming from the opposite perspective, I look at Joseph Smith’s ideas about where the Book of Mormon events occurred (and they seem to have changed over time,) and then read the Book of Mormon. Clearly the Book of Mormon describes a culture that flourished in an area that was only a few hundred miles across. The geography just makes no sense, otherwise. So if JS assumed it all took place over the entire hemisphere, and yet the book clearly implies otherwise, I conclude that JS didn’t write the book.

so you really think in those few hundred miles there millions of people with an advanced civilization that were never exposed to mayas, olmecs, etc. or chocolate, llamas, obsidian and any of those other obviously precolumbian things?

Likewise, the destruction in 3 Nephi is a PERFECT description of a large pyroclastic eruption. Since JS did not live through such a thing, and wouldn’t have known anyone who did, I conclude that he didn’t write it.

since he couldn’t have heard or read about it in the library. I mean after all no one in upstate NY at that time had ever been educated enough to understand volcanos.

The Pope is supposed to be an infallible guide in issues of faith and morals, and yet Innocent IV could proclaim,

“The podestà or ruler (of the city) is hereby ordered to force all captured heretics to confess and accuse their accomplices by torture which will not imperil life or injure limb, just as thieves and robbers are forced to accuse their accomplices, and to confess their crimes; for these heretics are true thieves, murderers of souls, and robbers of the sacraments of God.” Ad Extirpanda, 1252.

Seems like torture is a very important moral issue. Why would God let the Pope ORDER the torture of heretics to make them confess and accuse others?

I’m sure you have some reason why the bull Ad Extirpanda was not an “infallible” moral ruling, but that’s my point. You don’t think the Pope is infallible for every issue that some might consider “important.”

it’s not just about what we would consider “important” he is only infallible when speaking through the magisterium to define binding doctrine. you are incorrectly defining faith and morals in this case. you picked the wrong person for this line anyway. I’m a bit of a warmonger in this case. if you really want to pursue this we can talk BY and danites and castrations, etc. since BY claimed to speak with and for God himself. but you are deflecting here anyway

That would be interesting to discuss sometime. I’ve never been that big on archaeology, so I probably ought to learn more about it.

well it is interesting.

I suppose when he appears directly to them? I don’t see what the problem is here. Didn’t Jesus say to pray to the Father in his name? Why shouldn’t we do what he said, barring special circumstances?

you were correct until “barring special circumstances” we can pray to all 3 members of the Godhead. Jesus is especially worthy of our worship and prayers, it’s why we are Christians. those who assign a lesser role to Jesus and honor him but don’t pray to or worship him would be in a different category. like muslims.

The Lectures on Faith were never considered revelations–just lectures. And they were written before JS received the revelation that the Holy Spirit is an individual person (see D&C 130).

wait a minute. they were included in canonized scripture approved by JS who had supposedly already met God the Father and the Son in person. they were retained in those scriptures until 1910 and even the current version still says they are profitable for teaching. they were used in JS school of the prophets!

Like I said, I’m not disputing the fact that our doctrines have developed over the years. If you believe in continuing revelation, that comes with the territory.

no it doesn’t. added revelation might exist but not wholesale change where something is good one day then evil another then a commandment then a sin worthy of excommunication. OR God is spirit, jesus is flesh then no both are flesh or One God then many Gods and you can be one too… God was laways God, then God was once a man.

But look what you are doing to make the development seem as extreme as possible. You are first taking the most extreme possible reading of the Book of Mormon, even though I pointed out that it never says much specific about HOW the Godhead is one. And then you characterize modern LDS teaching as “henotheistic,” which doesn’t leave much room for the really deep oneness that we actually believe in.

there are MANY examples of the henotheistic teaching. just go to www. lds.org and lookup eternal progression.

To me, Jesus seems to say that we can become one in him and the Father just like he and the Father are one.

“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art** in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.” (John 17:21-22)

yep we can share in the beatific vision. this allows us to experience that oneness that is hared by the trinity.

Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I understand what Catholics mean by “consubstantial.” I just don’t understand how you get that out of John 1.

it’s not just john 1. it’s the body of scripture as a whole viewed through the context of sacred tradition.

 

[majick275]

just for the record I think JS plagiarized from multiple sources with the help of Oliver Cowdery. I think Sidney rigdon helped him whith the edits later and also wrote most of the D&C (except the commanding specific people to sell land or go on a mission leaving their wives behind) I think the BoA was all JS getting overconfident with his ability to fool people. JST I believe was Rigdon helping to prop up his doctrine. I think Rigdon was the church “architect” but JS at some point got caught up in the surprising success and went lone wolf. that’s when the weird stuff came out and JS behavior got totally out of hand. Law had it figured out so he had to go. Oliver and rigdon were in too deep and had to hold on as best they could. JS had attracted like minded folks by then though and thus enjoyed fanatical support. the real boon for the LDS church though came with JS death. (which I think was unexpected) That made him a martyr in the eyes of the mormons and let BY take over with an excuse to go into seclusion. a few generations under a totalitarian theocrat isolated from the outside world and voila “birth of a nation” (well a culture at least…okay a subculture)

 

[PaulDupre]

As far as I know, abortion and contraception were not an issue in the early days of the LDS Church. I do not recall having come across the subject in my study of the early history of the Church.

zerinus

Google “abortion Nauvoo”. You may be surprised.

 

[BDawg]

BDawg- I’m going to be VERY honest. Your posts are getting a little out of hand. You act like we are stupid when really we will never see the Mormon church like you do. Fine if you want to be a member of the LDS faith but don’t go bashing Catholics. It seems to me bring up past Popes and such makes you not even realize the time it was said and the culture.

You really should look up infallibility you don’t know what it really means:shrug:

BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Bashing Catholics. Oh, that’s rich. This thread was started because some Catholic was frustrated with how much Mormon bashing was going on here. The reply? “Mormonism is soooooooo STUPID. Do you know they believe (insert something that sounds weirder than it really is if you understand it)? And no, they’re not REALLY nice, God-fearing people. After all, they promote abortion!” Etc., etc.

So I was bopping around the internet and found this thread. I decided to point out how ridiculous and unfair some of these arguments were. I mean, the last people I want to hear a lecture about being too “pro-Choice” from are Catholics, who can’t even persuade their own people to get fewer abortions than the national average. But I guess some of you are still in denial about that.

Then I meet Majick. He seems to have been one of those Mormons who thinks that prophets must know everything that is important TO HIM, all the time, or they can’t really be prophets. I point out that Popes are supposed to be infallible about issues of faith and morals, but one of them ordered rulers of cities to torture confessions out of accused heretics. That seems to me to be more important to get right than geographical details in the Book of Mormon. Well, isn’t it?

So I’m a Catholic basher for THAT? I was merely pointing out that, yet again, you guys are throwing out arguments against the Mormons that can easily be turned back against you.

So buck up and grow a spine, Patty. If you live in a glass house, hold off on the stone-throwing.

 

[Elric]

See my reply to majick about my PhD.

Assuming that by “people foward this DNA issue” you mean “people who have brought up this DNA issue,” here’s my reply. They made an argument. Some of the scientific issues were overblown. (Happens all the time–I’m an associate editor of two scientific journals, so I know.) They only painted their scientific conclusions as an argument against a particularly narrow reading of the Book of Mormon that most educated Mormons hadn’t accepted for decades.

What exactly was that “narrow reading” and why havnt most educated mormons accepted that for years?

Yes.

No.

Thank you for the straight foward answers.

You can find a good summary here:

jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml

I wouldnt really call that a “good summary”, it makes some strange arguments (even without a PhD, I can see that) and his Book of Abraham page is a little off putting.

Personally I dont think that the DNA disproves the authenticity of the BoM, it is a mark against it, but on its own it doesnt do much. It is interesting to read the arguments for and against though.

Why didnt you respond to my comments about the BoM?

 

[zerinus]

Google “abortion Nauvoo”. You may be surprised.

You must be nuts. I did just that, and found nothing.

zerinus

 

[East_Anglican]

if the mormon god and mary had sexual relations, how was Jesus born of a Virgin?

dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb…

Logic doesn’tcome into it.Mormonism is a satanic deception.

 

[East_Anglican]

What Mormons believe about Abortion is a red herring.

If Mormoons believe that native Americans are decendentsofthe peoplein the book of Mormon. Then either they are really stupid or they are under a satanic deception.

The Book of Mormon says it has a familier spirit and The Bible says this

Deuteronomy 18
10There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.

11Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

12For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.​

Therefore, according to what The Bible says and what the book of Mormon says about its self, consulting The Book of Mormon is an abomination to God.

I believe that this familier spirit in the book of Mormon blinds Mormons to the ridiculousness of their religion.

Mormons claim we’re wrong and they are right. We say we are right and they are wrong. To work out which is right we must go back to the foundation of the religion. Christianity was founded by someone who was sinless and Mormonism was founded by a flandering con man.

Mormons claim to be honest and tell us everything.

OK,

Tell us about your under garment with the freemason symbols on it.

 

[zerinus]

I wasn’t discussing punishment for infidelity. I was discussing whether or not fidelity to a particular teaching is indicative of the truth of that teaching.

You know something, it is really frustrating talking to you.

1. I did not say that the “popularity of a teaching is indicative of its truth”. I said that LDS perceive that their leaders teach them correct principles; therefore they are more willing to follow them than is the case with Catholics and their leaders. Those are two different statements.
2. Exed Mormons are no longer Mormons, therefore they don’t count.
3. The Israelites were a nation, not a church. A transgressing Israelite could not be “exed” from being an Israelite.
4. The Israelites who disobeyed their leaders did so because they were sinners, not because they didn’t know that the teaching was correct. If sinful Mormons were not exed, eventually most Mormons would be disobeying their leaders too, just as the Israelites used to do.
5. Bottom line: The two situations are not comparable. You are comparing apples with car tires. In one case you are dealing with a nation, and in the other with a church. They are not the same.

As an aside, this brings me to another reason why Mormons more readily follow the counsel of their church than Catholics do. I had said that there was more than one reason. I had given you the most important one. Here is another reason that is nearly as important:

In the LDS Church, precisely because it is true, and because of the way it is governed and organized (by inspiration), it is very difficult to hide sin and transgression. A sinful Mormon who does not confess or repent of it soon enough, will find it very difficult to continue to function actively in the Church. They lose the Spirit of the Lord, find that they can not perform their callings in the Church, cannot give honest answers to their bishops in an interview, cannot even interact normally with other Church members as they otherwise would, and eventually they either go inactive, or leave the Church, or are exed. Therefore the general worthiness of church members to a large degree is maintained. In the Catholic Church, it is not like that at all. It is entirely possible for someone to be very sinful, and still remain a Catholic—and even hold responsible positions. That is another reason why a much larger percentage of Mormons obey the counsel of their leaders, and follow the teachings of their Church, than a comparable proportion of Catholics do.

You say there are two billion Catholics in the world? Fine! But if the Catholic Church was run, organized, and governed like the LDS Church is, the great proportion of those “Catholics” would either be inactive (which many of them essentially are), or they would have left the Catholic Church of their own accord, or they would have been exed. The real number of “Catholics” would be far smaller than it is (nominally) today.

zerinus

 

[East_Anglican]

You know something, it is really frustrating talking to you.

Now you know what its like to talk to a Mormon.
zerinus;3399889:

1. I did not say that the “popularity of a teaching is indicative of its truth”. I said that LDS perceive that their leaders teach them correct principles; therefore they are more willing to follow them than is the case with Catholics and their leaders. Those are two different statements.

You are changing the word belief to principle to evade the subject of your belief.

1. Exed Mormons are no longer Mormons, therefore they don’t count.

You Mormons are very clever. Once people are in your [MODERATOR NOTE: removed uncharitable comments] religion you make them give up all the freinds outside of it and so the only friends athey have are Mormons. All your family and freinds end up being Mormons. If you rebel agianst the errant teaching of what you claim to be a church you are exed and then have no friends. This muzzles any protest. It’s clever, sneaky and deceptive.

The only reason you have contact with non-mormons is for the purpose of conversion.

1. The Israelites were a nation, not a church. A transgressing Israelite could not be “exed” from being an Israelite.

Church = Greek ecclesia = call out people.

As Israel was called out from among the nations, Israel was the Old Testament Church. Excomunication did happen to Israel, they were taken captive to Babylon. God did it instead of an earthly leader. The Christian Church is eternal while the Mormon idea of a church isn’t even 200 years old.

1. The Israelites who disobeyed their leaders did so because they were sinners, not because they didn’t know that the teaching was correct. If sinful Mormons were not exed, eventually most Mormons would be disobeying their leaders too, just as the Israelites used to do.

In Mormonism it is a control mechanism which I have already explained.

1. Bottom line:

The two situations are not comparable. You are comparing apples with car tires. In one case you are dealing with a nation, and in the other with a church. They are not the same.

I’ve just explained to you how they are compatible. You wouldn’t understand how THe Church is eternal and Israel was part of it because you are not in it. you are outside The Church and The Covenants.

As an aside, this brings me to another reason why Mormons more readily follow the counsel of their church than Catholics do. I had said that there was more than one reason. I had given you the most important one. Here is another reason that is nearly as important:

Mormons follow the counsel of their ‘church’ because they will lose all their freinds and be all alone and they will no longer be ‘special.’

In the LDS Church, precisely because it is true, and because of the way it is governed and organized (by inspiration), it is very difficult to hide sin and transgression. A sinful Mormon who does not confess or repent of it soon enough, will find it very difficult to continue to function actively in the Church. They lose the Spirit of the Lord, find that they can not perform their callings in the Church, cannot give honest answers to their bishops in an interview, cannot even interact normally with other Church members as they otherwise would, and eventually they either go inactive, or leave the Church, or are exed. Therefore the general worthiness of church members to a large degree is maintained. In the Catholic Church, it is not like that at all. It is entirely possible for someone to be very sinful, and still remain a Catholic—and even hold responsible positions. That is another reason why a much larger percentage of Mormons obey the counsel of their leaders, and follow the teachings of their Church, than a comparable proportion of Catholics do.

The Mormon reliegion is false and it is designed so that you bear your ‘testemony’ which is that you believe the book of mormon and love your friends and family so that you feel ‘special’ alia ‘superior’ , and so you don’t want to believe. It is a system of control so that all you do is by being controled rather than bty being lead by Christ.

[MODERATOR NOTE: removed uncharitable comments]

Now will you please tell us about your occultic under garment?

I’ve been told by Mormons it’s very precous to you. I hear you have to make an oath not to talk about it. Is that true?

What are the symbols on your under garment?

I’ve been told they represent covenants. As the only two covenants ordained by God are Christian Marriage and The blood covenant with Jesus Christ the signs of which are baptism and partaking of the eucharist, can you explain who ordained the coveants represented on you under garment?

[MODERATOR NOTE: removed uncharitable comments]

Is it true that your under garment is supposed to protect you from Christians?

I tell you now, if so it doesn’t work.

I dare you to tell us about your under garment in Jesus’ name.

 

[BDawg]

Logic doesn’tcome into it.Mormonism is a satanic deception.

You go, Torquemada! Kick down that heresy!

 

[PattyPryor]

BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Bashing Catholics. Oh, that’s rich. This thread was started because some Catholic was frustrated with how much Mormon bashing was going on here. The reply? “Mormonism is soooooooo STUPID. Do you know they believe (insert something that sounds weirder than it really is if you understand it)? And no, they’re not REALLY nice, God-fearing people. After all, they promote abortion!” Etc., etc.

So I was bopping around the internet and found this thread. I decided to point out how ridiculous and unfair some of these arguments were. I mean, the last people I want to hear a lecture about being too “pro-Choice” from are Catholics, who can’t even persuade their own people to get fewer abortions than the national average. But I guess some of you are still in denial about that.

Then I meet Majick. He seems to have been one of those Mormons who thinks that prophets must know everything that is important TO HIM, all the time, or they can’t really be prophets. I point out that Popes are supposed to be infallible about issues of faith and morals, but one of them ordered rulers of cities to torture confessions out of accused heretics. That seems to me to be more important to get right than geographical details in the Book of Mormon. Well, isn’t it?

So I’m a Catholic basher for THAT? I was merely pointing out that, yet again, you guys are throwing out arguments against the Mormons that can easily be turned back against you.

So buck up and grow a spine, Patty. If you live in a glass house, hold off on the stone-throwing.

ahhh just what I was talking about. You have every right to post here but to point fingers and laugh is rude and just mean. I don’t need a back bone thank you but I would like to be respected. I’m sorry but I should be reporting your posts because you are so sarcastic it is mean.

 

[majick275]

Then I meet Majick. He seems to have been one of those Mormons who thinks that prophets must know everything that is important TO HIM, all the time, or they can’t really be prophets. I point out that Popes are supposed to be infallible about issues of faith and morals, but one of them ordered rulers of cities to torture confessions out of accused heretics. That seems to me to be more important to get right than geographical details in the Book of Mormon. Well, isn’t it?

hey now!!! quit changing the rules. you are still misstating infallibility and I never indicated that “prophets” have to know everything. What I believe is that if a true prophet actually speaks to God (face to face like one man to another) asks a doctrinal question and gets an answer and then goes and tells the church it should be eternal truth. Furthermore if people claim to be oracles of the lord and address the church as a whole speaking in the name of the Lord they should be doctrinally correct in what they say.

as to your one example (twisted way out of context and completely misapplied to the subject of infallibility) I have no problem with torture in wartime. I would much rather take a terrorist and do whatever it takes to wring information out of them then pamper them in our sad excuse for a legal system while their buddies blow more people up in cases that could have been avoided if we had the information.i also believe that in more primitive times there were fewer alternatives and thus more legitimate cases for capital punishment and torture. of course we really need to define by such a charged word as “torture”.

do you really want to go down this path though? if so then let’s hurry up and get to William Law’s words on this subject and especially BY’s tenure, danites, etc.

 

[why_me]

ahhh just what I was talking about. You have every right to post here but to point fingers and laugh is rude and just mean. I don’t need a back bone thank you but I would like to be respected. I’m sorry but I should be reporting your posts because you are so sarcastic it is mean.

If you would read the catholic posts, you will see rudeness, meanness, and disrespect. And that is the problem. Not the mormons who choose to respond.

 

[BDawg]

You Mormons are very clever. Once people are in your satanic religion you make them give up all the freinds outside of it and so the only friends athey have are Mormons. All your family and freinds end up being Mormons. If you rebel agianst the errant teaching of what you claim to be a church you are exed and then have no friends. This muzzles any protest. It’s clever, sneaky and deceptive.

Wow, I didn’t know I was so sneaky and deceptive! And I didn’t know that all my non-Mormon friends weren’t really my friends! (Or is it that they are really Mormons?! No, wait! The LDS Church… has brainwashed me… into… thinking they aren’t Mormons when they really are! It all makes sense, now! How could I have been taken in by something so obvious?

Here’s another possible scenario, though.

1. Some friends of yours joined the Mormons.
2. Since you “like to kick down heresy,” you started acting like a jerk to them. (Case in point: Your posts here.)
3. Now they avoid you.

Now will you please tell us about your occultic under garment?

Ok, the jig is up. My… no, I can’t say it… just do it, BDawg, or you’ll never be healed. I’m ready, now.

My socks are Satanic.

Yes, it’s true. No regular, non-possessed fabric should stink so badly. If I ever take off my shoes, passersby gag and say, “That’s not right!” I swear I saw them crawling across the floor one time when the lights were dim.

I’ve been told by Mormons it’s very precous to you. I hear you have to make an oath not to talk about it. Is that true?

True enough. They are certainly “precous.” And SEEEEECRRRRREEEETTTTTTT. They’re so secret that there’s a 1.5-page entry on the topic in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/EoM&CISOPTR=4391&CISOSHOW=3716

Is it true that your under garment is supposed to protect you from Christians?

No, actually, they are just supposed to protect me from making a complete *** of myself in public. You should try some, sometime… Try SOMETHING, at least. Anything.

I tell you now, if so it doesn’t work.

Now, Torquemada… You know you want to exorcise me and Zerinus right now. How can you really “kick down” this heresy if you’re holding back? Why am I egging you on? Because my underwear are EXORCISM-PROOF!!! Yes, that’s right. I DARE you.

I dare you to tell us about your under garment in Jesus’ name.

Boy, I’ve heard of commanding in Jesus’ name. I’ve heard of praying in Jesus’ name. But this is the first time I’ve ever had someone DARE me in Jesus’ name! I love it. It’s my new catch phrase.

How about you read the encyclopedia article, Torq?

 

[Jerusha]

of course any dissenting LDS scientists are now ex-LDS. I think the best reading of the BoM is inthe context that it was explained originally by the alleged prophet who claimed to have translated it. looking at his writings and sayings as a whole on the subject in my opinion makes LGT very unlikely if it’s in mesoamerica.

well the place names are sure interestingly similar to the modern ones. I also find it problematic with cumorah and moroni and the plates to say it was all done in mesoamerica except the final resting place of the plates. the mesoamerican theory also make sit even more obvious the lack of BoM mention of anything that we now know to be characteristic of those pre-Columbian cultures that lived there in large numbers during that time.

mazeministry.com/mormonism/holley/holleymaps.htm

Perhaps this might help.

For a Ph. D., BDawg seems to be getting mighty angry.

On the other hand, East Anglican ain’t bein’ nice, either.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I think all I need learn about Mormonism is being taught to me by the attitude of BDAWG towards other posters. Calling them names, mocking them and refering to them with self imposed aliases.

Is that the Mormon way of acting as Jesus would?