Making a fair and thorough literary evaluation of Book of Mormon authorship

[LongJourney]

It is throughout an evangelical Book and this is what Lynn Ridenhour, the author of the article on center place - see post #156 has meant when he writes about the Baptist Version of the BoM. - The doctrine of the Baptists’ and the BoM is more or less identical!

This is the reason why many Protestants have difficulty refuting the BoM. Mormons, in return, tell them that if the BoM is of no worth, then the Bible, interpreted literally, must be of no worth.

They then end up getting bogged down in post-1840 Mormon teachings, which turn into jello because the “prophets” were in error

 

[Returning_Home]

"Jesus said “by their fruits you shall know them”

This is true.

Unfortunately, the Bible speaks several times about ‘another gospel,’ and with Mormonism being focused on exaltation and attaining godhood, it’s exactly that. Therefore, the ‘fruits’ you’re looking forward to reaping are possible damnation.

“Jesus is the last source of “revealed Revelation” and also the last prophet as there was no more to be said then what Jesus said.”

Simple question! Why do you then have the book of Revelation if all “revealed Revelation” was no more to be said then what Jesus said.?

Silly goose! The Bible doesn’t rule out further revelation from God, but rather from false prophets like Joseph Smith.

 

[ParkerD]

This goes to the question that I’ve asked several times before: how, if all churches were founded by Satan as of Smith’s conversation with God and Jesus in 1823, are they not an abomination before God now? Is not Catholicism almost exactly the way it was then? I’m pretty sure that it is.

RH,
Doesn’t it occur to you that since there are passages in the Book of Mormon that talk about there being either the “church of the Lamb of God” or the “church of the devil”, that those words are talking about what is going on inside the heart of people rather than what institution they belong to? If you care to explore the deeper meaning, you could read Moroni 7 and will find that it teaches about “whatever thing is good comes from Christ and is light”, and “whatever thing is evil comes from the devil.” So if people are following the “light” that comes from Christ through all that He taught and through His atoning grace and His love, then of course those are good things. But if they act selfishly, in bull-headed ways, or in ways that attempt to force others to do a certain thing (rather than allow them to choose) or in obviously sinful ways with no repentant attitude, then they aren’t following Christ or what He taught. That would mean that Satan has exerted power over them in their life.

Some “abominations” I see happening in the world today are (1) when Christianity is treated like a “club” where membership relies on belief in the non-Biblical Nicene creed and thus the people are taught that such people as the LDS “aren’t Christian” because they don’t believe that non-Biblical doctrine, thus setting them up for making harsh judgments all because of what their leaders have told them to believe. This leads them away from really getting a sense of what the Bible actually teaches about how Christians act and how they feel about Christ. The “abomination” would be in the belief–not in the day-to-day lives of the people with that belief, but in those moments when they have that belief run through their mind and it circumscribes how they think about someone they know virtually nothing about.

Also, (2) the limited omnipotence believed in about God–that He can’t bring a soul into His presence in a way that a soul can be described as being “like Him”–when that is exactly what the Bible teaches that Christ offers to humankind.

 

[ParkerD]

Again, that’s why I’ve been put here by God. I see you’ve taken the old position of we don’t know what we’re talking about. That gets pretty old because I’m able to go toe-to-toe with you or any other apologist on any day of the week, cutting through the nonsense and getting to the facts of the matter.

On my way to work, I pass very near my local Catholic church and I sometimes stop in for a few mintues to pray to God for help in being a better husband, father, friend, employee, and person in general.

I feel a lot better after I do.

RH,
Thanks for sharing about how your Catholic beliefs and prayer help you–great!

Just because you think you know “the facts of the matter” does not make it so. You can do far more reading than you have done to get a far better understanding of Mormonism and how Mormons live their lives (as opposed to how you speculate that they live their lives or think or talk or teach or pray or act–every post you write shows only your speculative perceptions, which are no one’s reality but your own because they frame how you think.)

 

[Returning_Home]

Doesn’t it occur to you that since there are passages in the Book of Mormon that talk about there being either the “church of the Lamb of God” or the “church of the devil”, that those words are talking about what is going on inside the heart of people rather than what institution they belong to? If you care to explore the deeper meaning, you could read Moroni 7 and will find that it teaches about “whatever thing is good comes from Christ and is light”, and “whatever thing is evil comes from the devil.” So if people are following the “light” that comes from Christ through all that He taught and through His atoning grace and His love, then of course those are good things. But if they act selfishly, in bull-headed ways, or in ways that attempt to force others to do a certain thing (rather than allow them to choose) or in obviously sinful ways with no repentant attitude, then they aren’t following Christ or what He taught. That would mean that Satan has exerted power over them in their life.

No, that actually hadn’t occurred to me because in the proper context, it’s clear that the very demonination that people belong to is what he was referring to when he wrote the BOM. That’s the reason that he went out into the grove in the first place, to ask God which church he should join.

I agree that good things come from God, but since Mormonism is another gospel that the Bible warns us about and that you’re risking your eternal soul in following it, no, the ultimate result isn’t good at all.

Some “abominations” I see happening in the world today are (1) when Christianity is treated like a “club” where membership relies on belief in the non-Biblical Nicene creed and thus the people are taught that such people as the LDS “aren’t Christian” because they don’t believe that non-Biblical doctrine, thus setting them up for making harsh judgments all because of what their leaders have told them to believe. This leads them away from really getting a sense of what the Bible actually teaches about how Christians act and how they feel about Christ. The “abomination” would be in the belief–not in the day-to-day lives of the people with that belief, but in those moments when they have that belief run through their mind and it circumscribes how they think about someone they know virtually nothing about.

This indicates that you’re feeling sorry that you’re being left out of the exclusive club. It’s merely your perception, however, because you’re more than welcome to become a Christian whenever you choose to leave Mormonism. I hope I can help you with that transition someday.

I had to stifle a laugh when you claim that we believe in “non-Biblical doctrine.” I’ll be the first to say that I don’t subscribe to all the Catholic dogma, but it’s odd to think that you’re casting such stones when nothing in modern Mormonism is found either the Bible or the BOM. That’s being more than a tad hypocritical.

Yes, the abomination that 1 Nephi refers to is indeed the belief and those who don’t subscribe to Mormonism are clearly just that. You can only make an argument for the opposite position if you take it all out of context.

And then the old fall-back position, the one that requires no proof at all and the best defense you can mount: that I simply don’t understand. Since I own all of the standard works, six different editions of the BOM, a student manual published by your church for the same, and numerous pro-LDS texts, it’s more than puzzling that you can make such a claim with a straight face. In reality, what you mean is that I simply do not accept your version of events because I’ve put all of the available pieces together and come to the logical conclusion that it’s all bogus, one lie stacked on another. I don’t believe because I have no reason to. I accept the facts and reject the lies which is the reason you’re on the defensive right now, contorting under the weight of the truth, desperately looking for a way to make Mormonism real and save face in order to cling to your precious priesthood.

I don’t like doing this because I feel like I’m kicking a puppy sometimes, but the harsh reality is that it’s false and I think you’re aware of it, but stop short of admitting it to yourself. Why? Because no one likes being wrong, no one likes looking foolish, and no one likes being ostracised, all of which would happen if you simply accepted the reality of Mormonism being a creation of corrupt and sinful, lying men. No, like Thomas Stuart Ferguson, you stay aboard the ‘good ship Mormonism’ for the benefits it brings.

Now ask yourself this: are the benfits you’re getting from a false faith here on earth worth the risk of eternal damnation after your death? I don’t make any assumptions that God will or won’t send anyone to Hell simply for following the false gospel of Joseph Smith, but is it going to worth it in the long run?

Also, (2) the limited omnipotence believed in about God–that He can’t bring a soul into His presence in a way that a soul can be described as being “like Him”–when that is exactly what the Bible teaches that Christ offers to humankind.

Again, being ‘like’ someone doesn’t make them exactly that, does it? If the circumstances of Jesus’ unique life do not reflect our circumstances, there’s no reason to assume that we’re going to find a parallel in our own sinful nature. We can be similar, but never equal to Jesus; we will always be beneath him.

 

[Returning_Home]

Just because you think you know “the facts of the matter” does not make it so. You can do far more reading than you have done to get a far better understanding of Mormonism and how Mormons live their lives (as opposed to how you speculate that they live their lives or think or talk or teach or pray or act–every post you write shows only your speculative perceptions, which are no one’s reality but your own because they frame how you think.)

I never once claimed that I know everything there is to know about Mormonism but I can hold my own. If I don’t know something, I go and find it in my printed literature, and almost never online. I own enough material that I can locate almost anything I need pretty fast and I have several books highlighted, written in, and cross referenced to help.

Speculative? Come now, Parker, I haven’t once specualted on something that I actually know about and when proven wrong, I say so. This has happened more than once and while I feel indignant or embarrassed, I have to be honest about it. You’re accusing me of telling people how I think Mormons are when I clearly haven’t. I stick to the facts that can be proven and conclusions that can be reached by simple logic using the sources available to the both of us. Again, I use the standards laid out by Orson Pratt so, if anything, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and starting from the assumption that your church is what it claims to be.

Again, the underlying defense here is that I just don’t understand.

 

[ParkerD]

No, that actually hadn’t occurred to me because in the proper context, it’s clear that the very demonination that people belong to is what he was referring to when he wrote the BOM. That’s the reason that he went out into the grove in the first place, to ask God which church he should join.

RH,
Joseph Smith didn’t know there was such a thing as the Golden plates or the Book of Mormon record when he went to the grove of trees to ask about which church to join. It is completely clear in the Book of Mormon that Nephi and Mormon and other prophets are seeing our day in vision and are describing circumstances that apply not to an outward physical “church” but to the inward spiritual lives of the people.

I agree that good things come from God, but since Mormonism is another gospel that the Bible warns us about and that you’re risking your eternal soul in following it, no, the ultimate result isn’t good at all.

How precisely to you get that belief from the Bible? Be specific–chapter and verse and context.

This indicates that you’re feeling sorry that you’re being left out of the exclusive club. It’s merely your perception, however, because you’re more than welcome to become a Christian whenever you choose to leave Mormonism.

Not feeling sorry at all, except from the standpoint that as I had noted what the leaders teach is then what the people follow, and it means they stop thinking when they read the Bible which means they are missing out on something important in their lives.

Chapter and verse again from the Bible that shows specifically the definition of Christian and how that definition excludes an LDS believer in Christ?

I had to stifle a laugh when you claim that we believe in “non-Biblical doctrine.” I’ll be the first to say that I don’t subscribe to all the Catholic dogma, but it’s odd to think that you’re casting such stones when nothing in modern Mormonism is found either the Bible or the BOM. That’s being more than a tad hypocritical.

Go ahead and cite chapter and verse in the Bible where the Nicene creed is specifically laid out? To say that a belief is non-Biblical is not to “cast stones” at people who follow the belief. It merely means the belief is non-Biblical.

Yes, the abomination that 1 Nephi refers to is indeed the belief and those who don’t subscribe to Mormonism are clearly just that. You can only make an argument for the opposite position if you take it all out of context.

The context of the Book of Mormon is the entire Book of Mormon. Why not go ahead and either list or post the verses that you think are specifically referring to LDS as compared with non-LDS, then we can check the broader context by referring to the Book of Mormon rather than to what you say it says.

And then the old fall-back position, the one that requires no proof at all and the best defense you can mount: that I simply don’t understand. Since I own all of the standard works, six different editions of the BOM, a student manual published by your church for the same, and numerous pro-LDS texts, it’s more than puzzling that you can make such a claim with a straight face.

I’m not in your library. All I see is the words you post here. I read the erroneous perceptions. I don’t feel “defensive” about it–I’m just attempting to help clear some of those erroneous perceptions.

Again, being ‘like’ someone doesn’t make them exactly that, does it? If the circumstances of Jesus’ unique life do not reflect our circumstances, there’s no reason to assume that we’re going to find a parallel in our own sinful nature. We can be similar, but never equal to Jesus; we will always be beneath him.

Our sinful nature is going to be purged if we allow sanctification to happen in our lives and in the next life. But I certainly agree that “we will always be beneath Him.” I have never thought that we wouldn’t. He is the rightful heir. We receive the grace of a “joint throne” with Him only through His merits and mercy–but it does require allowing ourselves to be sanctified.

 

[Returning_Home]

Joseph Smith didn’t know there was such a thing as the Golden plates or the Book of Mormon record when he went to the grove of trees to ask about which church to join. It is completely clear in the Book of Mormon that Nephi and Mormon and other prophets are seeing our day in vision and are describing circumstances that apply not to an outward physical “church” but to the inward spiritual lives of the people.

Incorrect and deceptive. The supressed (Hugh Nibley admitted such) account of Smith talking to the “Jewish minister” Joshua from his 1835-1836 diary shows that this was untrue because it contains elements of the Furst Vision as it is now known, but after he received the alleged plates.

Not only that, but the fact that Smith, in one of his many accounts of the origin of his work, has him finding the plates in Hill Cumorah with a seer stone, something that most Mormons don’t know.

To place any faith in Smith’s account of seeing God, Jesus, angels, unnamed personages, pillars of fire and/or light is foolish because he didn’t tell the same story twice. It happened in 1820, it happened 1823, he was 14, he was 17, he saw Nephi, he saw Moroni, and on and on. The only conclusion, butressed by the fact that he *never *once made a correct prophecy, is that he lied.

Do you grasp that? You believe because you want to, not because Smith or any of the witnesses have the least bit of credibility.

Your creative interpretation of the BOM’s message about other churches undermines what it says and thus the authority of your own church. You can’t have it both ways, Parker.

How precisely to you get that belief from the Bible? Be specific–chapter and verse and context.

Paul warned the Galatians (1:6-8) against preaching another gospel: “I marvel taht ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you that that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”

Some of those are mentioned specifically (Revelation 2:14, 15, 20-24): the doctrine of Ballam, the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, the doctrine of the woman Jezebel.

There are a number of different references to false teachers and false doctrines, but one of my favorites is 2 Peter 2:1: “…there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies.”

And of all the things that Mormonism claims to have ‘restored,’ we have no record outside of Mormonsim itself; it alone is its only evidence. We have no ancient Jewish records showing that they once believed that we could attain godhood, that God was once a man with flesh and bone but not blood, the premortal existance, three levels of Heaven, or anything else unique to Mormonism. Not only that, but we haven’t any mention of those things in the BOM, the cornerstone of your religion. We have exactly the opposite on all counts, don’t we?

 

[Returning_Home]

Not feeling sorry at all, except from the standpoint that as I had noted what the leaders teach is then what the people follow, and it means they stop thinking when they read the Bible which means they are missing out on something important in their lives.

Chapter and verse again from the Bible that shows specifically the definition of Christian and how that definition excludes an LDS believer in Christ?

Since the prophet speaks for God and he cannot lead us astray, it stands to reason that what he says is taken as gospel and taken literally. We find examples of this in that people actually believed that Adam was God, exactly as Brigham Young taught. Obviously, this violates the rule that the prophet of the church cannot lead us astray, doesn’t it?

Just because people read and take the Bible literally doesn’t mean that they shutoff their minds when the book is closed. No, a good Christian will take those lessons and hopefully apply them to their own lives, making themselves just a little bit better.

Mormons believe in *a *Christ, not *the *Christ of the Bible. Yoru christ is a weakling, a moron, and a liar perhaps because he’s the product of incest whereas the Christ of the Bible is one part of the all-powerful God Almighty.

Go ahead and cite chapter and verse in the Bible where the Nicene creed is specifically laid out? To say that a belief is non-Biblical is not to “cast stones” at people who follow the belief. It merely means the belief is non-Biblical.

Of course the Nicene Creed isn’t in the Bible, silly, since it dates some 200 years after the books of the Bible were written. I haven’t cast any stones; I’m following the Bible’s direction to ‘answer every man:’ Col 4:6, Heb 5:14, Jude 3:1, Thess 5:21.

That said, we can establish that there is but one god, which eliminates any possibility of exaltation for mankind: “I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God” and “…understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” (Isa 44:6, 43:10 respectively)

Therefore, God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus are tied together much more closely than merely ‘one in purpose,’ something that the BOM absolutely doesn’t teach in the 1830 edition. In fact, quite the opposite: “These records shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior.” (BOM, 1830, p.32)

This was changed in the second edition to reflect Smith’s evolving view of God:

"These records shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the *Son of the *Eternal Father and the Savior (BOM, 1 Nephi 14:30)

To support your erroneous view of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit being separate and distinct, you rely on a mere three words: son of the. That’s it. Not just thin, but anorexic.

We find in Phillippians 2:6-7 Christ going from being God to being God in human form and that God is a Spirit (KJV) or God is a Spirit (NIV, RSV, John 4:24) showing that all three are somehow one and yet somewhat different in function.

Unfortunately, our human minds operate well below the mind of God so it’s not easy to grasp such an extrodinary concept. Mormonism, on the other hand, demonstrates the arrogance of its founder by believing that God, the creator of the entire universe, owes mankind an explanation as to his nature and origin.

The context of the Book of Mormon is the entire Book of Mormon. Why not go ahead and either list or post the verses that you think are specifically referring to LDS as compared with non-LDS, then we can check the broader context by referring to the Book of Mormon rather than to what you say it says.

Chapter 14 heading: “An angel tell Nephi of the blessings and cursings to fall upon the Gentiles–There are only two churches: the Church of the Lamb of God and the church of the devil–The saints of God in all nations are persecuted by the great and abominable church…”

Mormons call non-Mormons ‘Gentiles.’ If they are the ‘Church of the Lamb of God,’ the ‘church of the devil’ can realistically, in this context, be assumed to be referring collectively to all non-Mormon faiths. We also find the term ‘abominable’ in verses 3,4,9,10-13, and 15-17, referring to either a ‘church’ or the acts and creeds thereof.

I’m not in your library. All I see is the words you post here. I read the erroneous perceptions. I don’t feel “defensive” about it–I’m just attempting to help clear some of those erroneous perceptions.

And do I not always cite my sources? Yes, I do cite my sources 100% of the time so you can actually find them yourself. You’ll use one of several ways to wriggle out of the implications, but they’re not going away whether you like it or not.

Our sinful nature is going to be purged if we allow sanctification to happen in our lives and in the next life. But I certainly agree that “we will always be beneath Him.” I have never thought that we wouldn’t. He is the rightful heir. We receive the grace of a “joint throne” with Him only through His merits and mercy–but it does require allowing ourselves to be sanctified.

Ah, but what you just claimed goes against the position of the church’s opinion regarding exaltation and godhood. Mormons apologists have worked hard to make it clear that there are so many verses in the Bible that prove the reality of exaltation being taught and now you’re trying to back away.

You’re good at this, stating the Christian viewpoint as your own when you hide what the church teaches to be fact, no matter what you truly believe.

But as you can tell, I’m not falling for it.

 

[ParkerD]

RH,
I have read your responses, and of course disagree totally. I’ve addressed the Galatians passage many times on this forum, as have others. Infant baptism which can’t possibly show active decision-making and covenant-making and belief by the person being baptized, is “another gospel”; celibate priests is “another gospel”; “no marriage in heaven” is “another gospel”; Peter as the holder of the key of David is “another gospel”. Those and the loss of apostolic keys and authority are the reasons “another angel” is prophesied to come to the earth in Revelation 14:6–to bring back that which was lost. But no way you’re going to see that.

When a person starts belittling the Savior (Who, by the way, is the “Eternal Father” in the sense that He is the Father of our salvation and the Father of this earth since He is the Word who created it and the Father of those who fully accept the atonement and become sanctified through His grace) and showing no reverence in how they write about Him, then I not only stop listening or having the conversation at all, but I ignore them altogether. You can claim a “win” (fine with me–makes not the slightest difference) but from my standpoint I will not place someone in the position of belittling Him any more, so I am simply gone away for you–bye.

 

[LongJourney]

Good bye, Parker. Hope to see you soon again. They are being a bit rough on you. Maybe you need a vacation among people who agree with you.

 

[Returning_Home]

I have read your responses, and of course disagree totally. I’ve addressed the Galatians passage many times on this forum, as have others. Infant baptism which can’t possibly show active decision-making and covenant-making and belief by the person being baptized, is “another gospel”; celibate priests is “another gospel”; “no marriage in heaven” is “another gospel”; Peter as the holder of the key of David is “another gospel”. Those and the loss of apostolic keys and authority are the reasons “another angel” is prophesied to come to the earth in Revelation 14:6–to bring back that which was lost. But no way you’re going to see that.

I don’t care that the Galations reference has been used before; the fact of the matter is that is undermines your position. I agree, there’s no Biblical standard for infant baptism, but that’s not ‘another gospel’ since a ‘gospel’ is about the saving grace of Jesus Christ and thus the reason that John’s, Mark’s, Matthew’s, and Luke’s accounts of Jesus are call ‘gospels.’

Remember, you’re trying to claim Gal 1:6-8 as your own but it clearly cites the “gospel of Christ,” the way we can be saved.

Infant baptism, that Peter was the first Pope celebate priests, and so forth are dogmatic elements of Catholicism, but aren’t considered by anyone I know, Catholic or otherwise, to be a ‘gospel.’ You’re trying to redefine the term for your own usage and thus prove your point.

Your attempt to use Rev 14:6 shows your poor understanding of the term ‘restoration,’ since we now know that there never was an apostacy and therefore no need for said restoration. The restoration refers to the communion of man with his creator, the dearth of sin in his kingdom, not the fictional ‘many plain and precious things’ for which there’s no indication much less actual evidence outside of Mormonism.

When a person starts belittling the Savior (Who, by the way, is the “Eternal Father” in the sense that He is the Father of our salvation and the Father of this earth since He is the Word who created it and the Father of those who fully accept the atonement and become sanctified through His grace) and showing no reverence in how they write about Him, then I not only stop listening or having the conversation at all, but I ignore them altogether. You can claim a “win” (fine with me–makes not the slightest difference) but from my standpoint I will not place someone in the position of belittling Him any more, so I am simply gone away for you–bye.

I have to make fun of the Savior; I don’t however, have an qualms about making fun of the Mormon jesus, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the silliness that the LDS holds up as factual.

Your description of Jesus is actually pretty sound here, but since we all know that Mormonism doesn’t perceieve him that way, your point is, as usual, moot.

And when confronted by the facts step-by-step and point-by-point, you run away? Is that because you’re trying to save face or because you have no ammunition left? Does the programming of Mormonism teach you to deal with critics and dissenters so? I guess you’re not as strong in your faith as you’d have us believe.

The only way I could claim a win here with you is if you saw Mormonism for the lie that it is and became a Christian.

Until then, I consider this a work in progress.

 

[Todd520]

RH,
I have read your responses, and of course disagree totally. I’ve addressed the Galatians passage many times on this forum, as have others. Infant baptism which can’t possibly show active decision-making and covenant-making and belief by the person being baptized, is “another gospel”; celibate priests is “another gospel”; “no marriage in heaven” is “another gospel”; Peter as the holder of the key of David is “another gospel”. Those and the loss of apostolic keys and authority are the reasons “another angel” is prophesied to come to the earth in Revelation 14:6–to bring back that which was lost. But no way you’re going to see that.

When a person starts belittling the Savior (Who, by the way, is the “Eternal Father” in the sense that He is the Father of our salvation and the Father of this earth since He is the Word who created it and the Father of those who fully accept the atonement and become sanctified through His grace) and showing no reverence in how they write about Him, then I not only stop listening or having the conversation at all, but I ignore them altogether. You can claim a “win” (fine with me–makes not the slightest difference) but from my standpoint I will not place someone in the position of belittling Him any more, so I am simply gone away for you–bye.

Parker, I hope you simply added RH to your ‘ignore list’, like I did. Forum life is so much more pleasant after ignoring disingenuous debate from RH & STM

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, I hope you simply added RH to your ‘ignore list’, like I did. Forum life is so much more pleasant after ignoring disingenuous debate from RH & STM

Todd,
Thanks for the good suggestion. I agree and have done that–now permanently in both of those cases.

Thanks for your enlightening participation in this forum.

 

[Returning_Home]

Oops, that sentence should’ve read: “I have *yet *to make fun of the Savior; I don’t however, have an qualms about making fun of the Mormon jesus, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the silliness that the LDS holds up as factual.”

 

[Returning_Home]

Parker, I hope you simply added RH to your ‘ignore list’, like I did. Forum life is so much more pleasant after ignoring disingenuous debate from RH & STM

After all, we know that Mormonism is so much more palatable without having to deal with all of those pesky facts.