Mormon Apostle states arguments against the Book of Mormon are "pathetic"

[why_me]

Mormonism seeks to control the members desire to think. I do not see that in Catholicism. It is a general trait of a cult. Follow the prophet, follow the prophet. Thinking is the thin end of the wedge of apostasy. Bow your head and say yes. Do I need to say more.

Sorry Why Me. Chalk and cheese on the issue of control. And once an LDS member believes he doesn’t have to think, he doesn’t. This is the principle key to converting the majority of Mormons to Christ. Get them to make that first step in thinking.

Hal.

I don’t think so hal. Mormonism does not seek to control the members. And who are the controlers in mormonism? And for what purpose? The mormon church believes strongly in education. Educated people can be hard to control. And what about catholicism? Attending Mass is an obligation. If a catholic does not go to Mass, they are committing a sin. That is control. Plus, there are other days of obligation where if a catholic does not attend it is a sin. That is also control. When sin is involved, there is always control.

Now of course, the lds church has sin also in its control. And in that, the catholic church and the lds church are the same. But in terms of a cult, many lds members leave the faith…they just need to walk out the door and never come back. It is that easy. The church doors are not locked and no one lives on a compound.

 

[why_me]

Hal,
You must be kidding. Have you followed the discussion about William Tyndale and how he was treated and his “thinking” was treated? Again, you must be kidding.

Not to mention the amount of control the catholic church had during the middle ages. And I do remember that many catholics who attended catholic school in the 60’s and 70’s did not have wonderful experiences at the hands of the Nuns. The control was immense.

But most religions exercise control over its members. The lds church is no different. The bible sets bounds for behavior and in that it seeks to control.

 

[why_me]

Let’s see,

1. How many changes have been made to the BoM? I heard 4000

Joseph Smith taught “the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”[1] As the end of the preceding quote clarifies, by “most correct” this he meant in principle and teaching. The authors of the Book of Mormon themselves explained several times that their writing was imperfect, but that the teachings in the book were from God (1_Ne. 19:6; 2_Ne. 33:4; Morm. 8:17; Morm. 9:31-33; Eth. 12:23-26).

Insignificant changes
If one counts every difference in every punctuation mark in every edition of the Book of Mormon, the result is well over 100,000 changes.[2] The critical issue is not the number of changes that have been made to the text, but the nature of the changes.

Most changes are insignificant modifications to spelling, grammar, and punctuation, and are mainly due to the human failings of editors and publishers. For example, the word meet — meaning “appropriate” — as it appears in 1_Ne. 7:1, was spelled “mete” in the first edition of the Book of Mormon, published in 1830. (This is a common error made by scribes of dictated texts.) “Mete” means to distribute, but the context here is obvious, and so the spelling was corrected in later editions.

Some of these typographical errors do affect the meaning of a passage or present a new understanding of it, but not in a way that presents a challenge to the divinity of the Book of Mormon. One example is 1_Ne. 12:18, which in all printed editions reads “a great and a terrible gulf divideth them; yea, even the word of the justice of the Eternal God,” while the manuscript reads “the sword of the justice of the Eternal God.” In this instance, the typesetter accidentally dropped the s at the beginning of sword.

The current (1981) edition of the Book of Mormon has this notice printed at the bottom of the page opposite 1 Nephi, chapter 1:

Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith.
Significant changes

Some Book of Mormon changes were corrections of transcription or printing errors.Changes that would affect the authenticity of the Book of Mormon are limited to:

those that are substantive AND
could possibly change the doctrine of the book OR
could be used as evidence that the book was written by Joseph Smith.
There are surprisingly few meaningful changes to the Book of Mormon text, and all of them were made by Joseph Smith himself in editions published during his lifetime. These changes include:

“the Son of” added to 1_Ne. 11:18; 1_Ne. 11:21, 1_Ne. 11:32, and 1_Ne. 13:40.
“or out of the waters of baptism” added to 1_Ne. 20:1.
“white” changed to “pure” in 2_Ne. 30:6.
“Benjamin” changed to “Mosiah” in Mosiah 21:28 and Eth. 4:1.
“Words missing in Alma 32:30”[3] Alma 32:30-31
The historical record shows that these changes were made to clarify the meaning of the text, not to alter it.

Many people in the church experience revelation that is to be dictated (such as a patriarch blessing). They will go back and alter their original dictation. This is done to clarify the initial premonitions received through the Spirit. The translation process for the Prophet Joseph may have occurred in a similar manner.

Conclusion
The authenticity of the Book of Mormon is not affected by the modifications that have been made to its text because the vast majority of those modifications are minor corrections in spelling, punctuation, and grammar. The few significant modifications were made by the Prophet Joseph Smith to clarify the meaning of the text, not to change it. This was his right as translator of the book.

These changes have not been kept “secret.” A discussion of them can be found in the individual articles linked above, and in the references listed below, including papers in BYU Studies and the Ensign.

en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_textual_changes

 

[StLawrenceFan]

It’s great to see how many count the ‘book of mormon’ as a heartless pile of textual bile twisted and dreamed-up by the fake prophet Joe Smith.

 

[why_me]

Let’s see,

1. How many changes to the temple ceremonies? Several, just check with some of the former LDS that are here.

Response
God’s directives and how He deals with His people often vary according to His people’s understanding and needs. God doesn’t tell everyone to build an ark and wait for a flood. Changes most often occur as a result of God dealing with his children according to their changing circumstances.

We know, for example, that major changes in practices took place during Christ’s ministry. Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses and practices associated with that law were no longer necessary. Changes also took place after Christ’s earthly ministry. For example, Christ originally taught the gospel only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel (Matt. 15:24) and forbade his apostles from going to the Gentiles (Matthew 10:5–6). After Christ’s death Peter was commanded by an angel to take the gospel to all people (Acts 10, Acts 11; Matt 28:19). Following Christ’s mortal ministry the practice of circumcision also became unnecessary (Acts 15, Galatians 6:15). Changes in the Church are not only common, but often necessary. Such changes, however, must be done by inspiration or revelation from the head of the Church, which is Christ.

That the temple ceremony has undergone changes, improvements, and refinements, should come as no surprise. Joseph Fielding Smith said that the “work of salvation for the dead came to the Prophet like every other doctrine—piecemeal. It was not revealed all at once.”[1]

Joseph Smith said that the endowment is designed to give “a comprehensive view of our condition and true relation to God” [3] by way of instruction and covenants. As noted by Brigham Young, important elements of the endowment include the key words, signs, and tokens. The vehicle by which these important elements are expressed, as well as other components of the endowment—such as penalties, and the dramatic presentation of the endowment–are less essential (relative truths). While the significance and purpose of the endowment remains unchanged, how God chooses to reveal the message and meaning of the endowment can change according to His direction. Thanks to continuing revelation, the endowment can be modified as our understanding changes. As Greg Kearney explains,

When Joseph was first trying to communicate the truths of the endowment he used a ritual form familiar to the saints of his day. That ritual form was, in some respects, Masonic in nature. As the saints lost their connection to Masonry the symbolic meaning of the penalties and other Masonic elements was lost as well. They became meaningless to all but a few Latter-day Saint Freemasons. So the penalties were removed along with other elements both Masonic and non-Masonic which no longer served the purpose of communicating the truths of the endowment.[4]
Although Joseph Smith received the principles of the endowment by revelation, he recognized that the presentation of the endowment could, and would, change. In May 1842, after the first endowment was given, the prophet Joseph told Brigham that the endowment was “not arranged perfectly” and he wanted Brigham to “organize and systematize” the ceremonies. In the process of so doing, Brigham claims to have gained more insight into the endowment.

Prophets following Joseph Smith
In succeeding years, Brigham Young suggested that the presentation of the endowment could further evolve. On April 6, 1845, in a Nauvoo Conference, Brigham Young said that Joseph “did not receive every thing connected with the doctrine of redemption” in his lifetime, but instead “left the key” with the Brethren. “We have got to learn how to be faithful in a few things; you know the promise is, if we are faithful in a few things, we shall be made ruler over many things. If we improve upon small things, greater will be given unto us.” [5]

The dramatic presentation of the endowment has undergone changes. Up until the dedication of the St. George Temple in 1877 the endowment teachings had passed on in oral form only. Brigham (as the sole survivor of the original group who received the endowment from Joseph Smith in 1842), was concerned that this ordinance be preserved as perfectly as possible. He enlisted the help of his son, Brigham, Jr., and Wilford Woodruff, giving them the assignment to record the ceremonies so they could be taught to the temple workers. Wilford Woodruff recalled that President Young labored “all winter to get up a perfect form of Endowments as far as possible.” [6] This indicates that the endowment may have varied slightly from the endowment of Joseph Smith.

Harold B. Lee emphasized that the means by which the endowment and its message are presented are subject to modification:

Now, you think for a moment—in the upper office over [Joseph Smith’s] store, with no equipment like we have in our temples today, the endowment had to be given by lecture. The Prophet Joseph Smith, through these his counselors and others as you heard their names, attended to the matters that we now have given in various ways. Sometimes our people who go through the temples are a bit startled because of the varied ways in which the endowment is presented. Perhaps, as under inspiration they studied the nature of the endowment, they thought to make it a little more meaningful to the patrons who would come: part by dramatization, part by question and answer, part by lecture, part by picturization on the walls of some of the temples. We have artists who have tried to put those who go through the temple in the mood of the lesson to be taught as they proceed through the temple.
…But it is the same message that was given by lecture by the Prophet Joseph Smith in his office over the John Taylor store. Now, when we have that in mind, we will see why the Prophet, in the beginning of this dispensation, gave certain instructions to have the brethren stimulated in their thinking.[10]
As the prophets have recognized, a living Church with continuing revelation, will expect the Lord to add further light, correction, and modification, as the needs of His people, and their understanding changes.

en.fairmormon.org/Temple_endowment_changes

It seems that the mormons have answers for everything, including your criticisms.

 

[why_me]

It’s great to see how many count the ‘book of mormon’ as a heartless pile of textual bile twisted and dreamed-up by the fake prophet Joe Smith.

Your words have been around since the lds church began. In fact if one reads the newspapers at that time, one can read almost the same words you use to describe mormons and mormonism. Of course, these newspapers were responsible for the burning down of mormon homes and the murders of mormons since they stirred up the crowds.

.

 

[dianaiad]

Whoa!!

Take a breath.

I’m breathing just fine, thank you.

First of all, there is more to being a martyr than just being killed.

Yep. In order to be a martyr, one must be killed, or at least suffer, because of one’s religious beliefs. According to every dictionary, (and every eclesiastical source I’ve come across, as well" a martyr is someone who suffers death or other severe punishment on behalf of their faith; 'often refusing to renounce it." So the additional requirement is that a martyr dies, or is punished, because of his or her faith. It’s not something the MARTYR does. It is something that is done TO him.

They have to accept their fate freely.

Only insofar as it is possible for them to avoid it by denying their faith.

Shooting back, and yes killing them is not accepting that freely.

It is certainly accepting the possibility of that. Joseph 'accepted it freely" when he went to Carthage, if you insist upon that.

In your previous post, where you talked about those facing the lions. You convienently left out the many that freely stood there, and accepted their death for what they stood for.

No I didn’t. I mentioned this specifically.

But obviously I wasn’t clear enough for you to understand.

Actually, I don’t think I was being clear enough.

Let me try again.

During the time the early Christians were martyred, most of them were killed under color of the law. That is, their beliefs and their actions were ILLEGAL. The laws that they broke were very bad ones, obviously, but they were, nevertheless, the law. The Christians were taken, subjected to whatever legal process was available, and then killed by whatever method was dictated. If it was death by wild animal in the arena, then that’s what happened. If it was to serve as lighting for the Emperor’s dinner parties, then that’s what happened (the Emperor being the pinacle of the law.) There was absolutely nothing they COULD do to avoid their fates. They protested in the only way they could.

They submitted to the law of the land, when they were aprehended, with dignity, and no, they did not fight back. They could not, anyway. Those who ‘simply stood there,’ as you describe them, were actually fighting back. You know that, right? Those people in the stands came to watch them try to hide, to run, to put their loved ones in front of them to save their own lives for a little while longer—stuff they were used to seeing. What they GOT was strong and brave people whose choices were to behave as they were expected to, or to behave with courage–and shame the watchers. Many, if not most, did the latter.

Joseph Smith’s situation was very different. He gave himself up to the law exactly the way the early Christians did. He didn’t fight when he was arrested; he turned himself in. He didn’t give anyone trouble when he went to the jail, even though he knew he would die there–and THAT is when such a fight would have done him some good.

He didn’t fight back against the laws of the land. He fought back against those who were breaking that law; subverting it.

Early Christians could, and DID, react violently to those who were illegally hurting them. Jesus sent his apostles out with swords to defend themselves with, remember?

Yes, he did kill two.

Really? Care to show me where?

Actually, the first reports were that he had killed three. Turns out, though, that he didn’t kill any of the three…or perhaps one died later.

But not, unfortunately, two. Sorry.

Whether you want to believe it or not. It is documented in your church history. Maybe you should try and read it sometime.

Actually, it doesn’t. Sorry.

Just because someone does not die instantly of their injury doesn’t mean he wasn’t killed.

I provided you a quote (in another thread) where one of the individuals that JS shot died some 9 months later from his wounds. Again, this is a statement from an elder of your chuch. JS inflicted the wound, the guy died. That is murder, just like JS was murdered.

You are kidding me, right? Since when is it ‘murder’ to be shot by someone you are illegally shooting at?

Do you want me to post them again for you? Here they are.

John Taylor, who became the third President of the Mormon Church, made these statements concerning the death of Joseph Smith:

"Elder Cyrus H. Wheelock came in to see us, and when he was about leaving drew a small pistol, a six-shooter, from his pocket, remarking at the same time, ‘Would any of you like to have this?’ Brother Joseph immediately replied, ‘Yes, give it to me,’ whereupon he took the pistol, and put it in his pantaloons pocket… I was sitting at one of the front windows of the jail, when I saw a number of men, with painted faces, coming around the corner of the jail, and aiming towards the stairs…

“I shall never forget the deep feeling of sympathy and regard manifested in the countenance of Brother Joseph as he drew nigh to Hyrum, and, leaning over him, exclaimed, ‘Oh! my poor, dear brother Hyrum!’ He, however, instantly arose, and with a firm, quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, approached the door, and pulling the six-shooter left by Brother Wheelock from his pocket, opened the door slightly, and snapped the pistol six successive times; only three of the barrels, however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, two of whom, I am informed died.” (History of the Church, Vol. 7, p. 100, 102 & 103)

His understanding was hopeful, but as it turns out, erronious.

and

“Two other men were known to get hit in the hall, one a man named Townsend from Fort Madison, Iowa Territory, who died nine months later from the arm wound that wouldn’t heal, and another named Mills, who was shot in the arm.”

• Elder Reed Blake, 24 Hours to Martyrdom, p. 129

Where does it say that two men DIED from this?

These are from LDS elders, and someone who ultimately became president of your church. Are they liars? mistaken? delusional?

Or was it a transcription error?

Come on Diania, I have alot more respect for you than that.

Then you should try showing it.

Oh, and you could try actually reading the posts you yourself are putting up here.

<snip, because I need to shorten this>

 

[why_me]

I’m breathing just fine, thank you.

Let me try again.

During the time the early Christians were martyred, most of them were killed under color of the law. That is, their beliefs and their actions were ILLEGAL. The laws that they broke were very bad ones, obviously, but they were, nevertheless, the law. The Christians were taken, subjected to whatever legal process was available, and then killed by whatever method was dictated. If it was death by wild animal in the arena, then that’s what happened. If it was to serve as lighting for the Emperor’s dinner parties, then that’s what happened (the Emperor being the pinacle of the law.) There was absolutely nothing they COULD do to avoid their fates. They protested in the only way they could.

Diana! Twopekinguys claim to be two people, one catholic and one protestant. But it seems that they both speak with the same voice. I see no difference in their personalites when they post. But one of them seems to get their information from antimormon sites and he usually buys into it hook, line and sinker. But really, it is so strange to dialogue with two people who speak with the same voice.

 

[StLawrenceFan]

Joseph Smith’s situation was very different. He gave himself up to the law exactly the way the early Christians did.

D -
JEEZ LOUIZZE, mormons just love to attempt to paint 'ol Joe into some kind of martyr!
He is nothing of the sort. He’s just a guy who killed two other men in the Carthage Jail while hoping to escape. He “gave himself” up to the law? He was arrested. Just an arrest.Why is everything so dramatic with that guy?

Meanwhile,

Have you ever read anything from Tricia Erickson? Very interesting. She’s the daughter of a mormon bishop. She says this (and a lot more on Romney, etc),** "She said: "I was born and raised as a Mormon. In fact, I was a Mormon bishop’s daughter. It amazes me that most of the world has not awakened to the false religion of Mormonism.

“I pray every day for the Lord to deliver my son, my brother and my nephew and their wives and children out of the blindness and mind control of this cult.”**

Quoted from here:

 

[PaulDupre]

why me:

I don’t think that the catholic church would encourage catholics to look at anticatholic arguments either.

It is never even mentioned. If you really hang around with priests and nuns as you claim, you would know that. We don’t worry about what others say, because their arguments never make sense. The more they say, the less sense they make. We are secure in the truth of our beliefs. Mormons apparently are not.

 

[twopekinguys]

I’m breathing just fine, thank you.

Yep. In order to be a martyr, one must be killed, or at least suffer, because of one’s religious beliefs. According to every dictionary, (and every eclesiastical source I’ve come across, as well" a martyr is someone who suffers death or other severe punishment on behalf of their faith; 'often refusing to renounce it." So the additional requirement is that a martyr dies, or is punished, because of his or her faith. It’s not something the MARTYR does. It is something that is done TO him.

Only insofar as it is possible for them to avoid it by denying their faith.

It is certainly accepting the possibility of that. Joseph 'accepted it freely" when he went to Carthage, if you insist upon that.

No I didn’t. I mentioned this specifically.

Actually, I don’t think I was being clear enough.

Let me try again.

During the time the early Christians were martyred, most of them were killed under color of the law. That is, their beliefs and their actions were ILLEGAL. The laws that they broke were very bad ones, obviously, but they were, nevertheless, the law. The Christians were taken, subjected to whatever legal process was available, and then killed by whatever method was dictated. If it was death by wild animal in the arena, then that’s what happened. If it was to serve as lighting for the Emperor’s dinner parties, then that’s what happened (the Emperor being the pinacle of the law.) There was absolutely nothing they COULD do to avoid their fates. They protested in the only way they could.

They submitted to the law of the land, when they were aprehended, with dignity, and no, they did not fight back. They could not, anyway. Those who ‘simply stood there,’ as you describe them, were actually fighting back. You know that, right? Those people in the stands came to watch them try to hide, to run, to put their loved ones in front of them to save their own lives for a little while longer—stuff they were used to seeing. What they GOT was strong and brave people whose choices were to behave as they were expected to, or to behave with courage–and shame the watchers. Many, if not most, did the latter.

Joseph Smith’s situation was very different. He gave himself up to the law exactly the way the early Christians did. He didn’t fight when he was arrested; he turned himself in. He didn’t give anyone trouble when he went to the jail, even though he knew he would die there–and THAT is when such a fight would have done him some good.

He didn’t fight back against the laws of the land. He fought back against those who were breaking that law; subverting it.

Early Christians could, and DID, react violently to those who were illegally hurting them. Jesus sent his apostles out with swords to defend themselves with, remember?

Really? Care to show me where?

Actually, the first reports were that he had killed three. Turns out, though, that he didn’t kill any of the three…or perhaps one died later.

But not, unfortunately, two. Sorry.

Actually, it doesn’t. Sorry.

You are kidding me, right? Since when is it ‘murder’ to be shot by someone you are illegally shooting at?

His understanding was hopeful, but as it turns out, erronious.

Where does it say that two men DIED from this?

Then you should try showing it.

Oh, and you could try actually reading the posts you yourself are putting up here.

<snip, because I need to shorten this>

Diania, what is it you’re not getting about JS killing two people?

It is in your own church history, written by other mormons. One of your own presidents is stating that he was informed 2 died.

If it is wrong, why is it in mormon church history?

Just like JS’s boast about how great he was. Parker thinks he was misquoted, but yet it is in your church history.

After all these years since these events happened, don’t you think the church history would have been corrected along with the multitude of other things that have been changed?

And yes, I do have respect for you. The majority of your responses appear to be genuine and sincere. There have been a few I haven’t cared for, but what the heck, we all have our moments. But what confounds me is that one one thread you are willing to compromise on JS being a martyr, and now you have done a 180. What is up with that?

 

[PaulDupre]

Actually, the first reports were that he had killed three. Turns out, though, that he didn’t kill any of the three…or perhaps one died later.

But not, unfortunately, two. Sorry.

So John Taylor lied, then? Please cite your source for saying that Joseph didn’t kill anyone. We are relying on LDS church history. Should we not consider your church a good source on its own history?

 

[why_me]

It is never even mentioned. If you really hung around with priests and nuns as you claim, you would know that. We don’t worry about what others say, because their arguments never make sense. The more they say, the less sense they make. We are secure in the truth of our beliefs. Mormons apparently are not.

Really?

Examination of Conscience

1. I am the Lord thy God: thou shalt not have strange gods before Me.
   My Faith – Have I denied it? doubted it? endangered it by reading anti-Catholic literature?
   Murmured against God at your adversity or at the prosperity of others?
   Despaired of His mercy and/or been presumptuous of his mercy?
   Taken part in or visited places of false worship?
   Spoken disrespectfully of holy persons or things?
   Neglected daily prayers?
   Been given to superstition or consulted fortune tellers?
   Omited religious duties or practices through motives of human respect?
   Spoken with levity or irreverence of priests, religious, or sacred objects?

Are you sure that you are catholic? The nuns and priests that I know follow this advice!

calefactory.org/sac-penance.htm

And so what I said was true…

Originally Posted by why me
I don’t think that the catholic church would encourage catholics to look at anticatholic arguments either.

 

[why_me]

So John Taylor lied, then? Please cite your source for saying that Joseph didn’t kill anyone. We are relying on LDS church history. Should we not consider your church a good source on its own history?

It is a fact. He didn’t kill anyone. I gave a source earlier but I think that you had me on ignore.

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
2 of the 200 mob members were shot, but not killed, after joseph smith shot 3 rounds (6 but only 3 discharged) after his brother was shot in the face. and about 15 rounds had already been shot through the jail doors. Although it is possible that one or more of these men died as a result of the wounds they received during their mob attack, there is no evidence to suggest that such is the case, other than second or third hand reports which most scholars have dismissed as folklore. Smith was shot 2 times in the back and then 1 once in the chest as he tried to go out the window. There is varying accounts as to what happened after that. there have been reports that he was still alive and the mob then opened fire on him like a firing squad, and some say he was dead when he fell out the window. there are also other stories as to why the mob fled. some say thunder and lightning sounded as soon as smith died, and others claimed to hear a “mormon mob” coming, even though there was no such group near by or on their way…

Sounds gruesome to me. But hey, I am just a human being.

 

[Stephen168]

It is never even mentioned. If you really hang around with priests and nuns as you claim, you would know that. We don’t worry about what others say, because their arguments never make sense. The more they say, the less sense they make. We are secure in the truth of our beliefs. Mormons apparently are not.

There was a time when I learned quite a bit about The Church and its history from anti-Catholics but lately it is mostly the same ol’ stuff over and over.

 

[Stephen168]

Examination of Conscience

1. I am the Lord thy God: thou shalt not have strange gods before Me.
   My Faith – Have I denied it? doubted it? endangered it by reading anti-Catholic literature?
   Murmured against God at your adversity or at the prosperity of others?
   Despaired of His mercy and/or been presumptuous of his mercy?
   Taken part in or visited places of false worship?
   Spoken disrespectfully of holy persons or things?
   Neglected daily prayers?
   Been given to superstition or consulted fortune tellers?
   Omited religious duties or practices through motives of human respect?
   Spoken with levity or irreverence of priests, religious, or sacred objects?

and over and over…

 

[PaulDupre]

why me:

Examination of Conscience

1. I am the Lord thy God: thou shalt not have strange gods before Me.
   My Faith – Have I denied it? doubted it? endangered it by reading anti-Catholic literature?
   Murmured against God at your adversity or at the prosperity of others?
   Despaired of His mercy and/or been presumptuous of his mercy?
   Taken part in or visited places of false worship?
   Spoken disrespectfully of holy persons or things?
   Neglected daily prayers?
   Been given to superstition or consulted fortune tellers?
   Omited religious duties or practices through motives of human respect?
   Spoken with levity or irreverence of priests, religious, or sacred objects?

Are you presenting this pamphlet as a directive from the Vatican?

If some LDS bishop wrote a guide to bishop’s interviews for his ward, would you present that as a directive from the 1st Presidency?

You are really reaching here…

 

[PaulDupre]

Actually, the first reports were that he had killed three. Turns out, though, that he didn’t kill any of the three…or perhaps one died later.

But not, unfortunately, two. Sorry.

Still waiting for that citation…

 

[twopekinguys]

Still waiting for that citation…

Did you ever get an answer to this question?

 

[majick275]

Are you presenting this pamphlet as a directive from the Vatican?

If some LDS bishop wrote a guide to bishop’s interviews for his ward, would you present that as a directive from the 1st Presidency?

You are really reaching here…

according to this definition whyme isn’t catholic…