The Great Apostasy

[ben_dy]

Well, I did find a good little article that explains what the Mormon doctrine of the “Great Apostasy” is all about - at the main “Catholic Answers” website no less (I really should subscribe again to This Rock):

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9203fea.asp

Not a long article but I now see where Chris was attempting to go with Apostolic succession… but, for me, it looks like a shut-out - no “Great Apostasy” to be found.

 

[ben_dy]

majick275:

John the beloved is not the same John as Peter, James and John in LDS belief. One wonders why John or the three nephites (or moroni) couldn’t have handled these “ordinances”. It is yet another inconsistency in JS doctrinal “evolution” that seems more rooted in the D&C than in the BoM.

Hmm - OK, if that’s the LDS manner of angels, but…

…if you check the index of the BoM, “JOHN THE BELOVED” is the John mentioned in ALL of these verses from the BoM and the D&C. The only other listing for a John is “JOHN THE BAPTIST”. So it appears that John the Beloved is the same John that is referenced in Nephi and throught D&C including (according to the index, anyway) 27:12 “And also with Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles, and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry and of the same things which I revealed unto them;”. So if John is an immortal man, and also a ministering angel, does he transcend Heaven and Earth somehow? It seems pretty clear from D&C 7 that Peter wanted to speedily come to God in His kingdom, but that John wanted to tarry - yet Peter and John can seem to join forces to ordain JS?

Still not making sense to me! Couldn’t be a minor slip-up, I don’t think, as I’m fairly certain all of those have been edited out by now!

 

[mormon_fool]

ben_dy:

…and yet for those who continue to speculate…

• F. Michael Watson more or less retracted this letter in 1993.

The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography. While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations [for Book of Mormon geography] because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah, **there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site.

**

• The church published “evidence” for two Cumorah’s in *the Ensign *in 1981.
• Ever since the earliest days of the church, members and GA’s alike have speculated about a Book of Mormon geography with LGT features.
• Which is not to deny that many GAs and members at one time held the view expressed in Watson’s 1990 letter.

Later,
fool

 

[Demosthenes]

I found this interesting. I do not know how this fits with current LDS belief. The following is taken from “Essentials in Church History” by Joseph Fielding Smith, 1953.

Chapter 1 Part 2 is called “The Falling Away”

It states that the falling away was predicted by the apostles and by the Lord. It quotes Isaiah, Amos, Danial and goes on to quote Paul that "in the last days perilous times would come and men would be ““lovers of their ownselves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, …””.

Additionally it states Peter "bore record of the departure from the faith when he worte to the saints saying: “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”

It further states that the “Church established by the Redeemer was taken from the earth because of apostacy…” and “the great ecclesiastical organization that arose and claimed to be the Church of Christ was of gradual growth.” It commenced in the first century and continued…until the Church estabilished in the days of the apostles was no more to be found among men."

“In the begginning of the fourth century this great religious power, under the Emperor Constantine became the state religion of the Roman Empire…” “…by it “time and laws” were changed.” “The simple principles of the Christian faith were embellished almost beyond recognition with pomp and mystic rites borrowed from pagan worship.”

It continues but I think this gives a general idea of what has been taught.

 

[catholic-rcia]

You will find the Heresys here:
catholic.com/library/great_heresies.asp

Demosthenes:

I
Additionally it states Peter "bore record of the departure from the faith when he worte to the saints saying: “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”

It further states that the “Church established by the Redeemer was taken from the earth because of apostacy…” and “the great ecclesiastical organization that arose and claimed to be the Church of Christ was of gradual growth.” It commenced in the first century and continued…until the Church estabilished in the days of the apostles was no more to be found among men."

catholic.com/library/great_heresies.asp

 

[catholic-rcia]

Demosthenes:

Chapter 1 Part 2 is called “The Falling Away”

It states that the falling away was predicted by the apostles and by the Lord. It quotes Isaiah, Amos, Danial and goes on to quote Paul that "in the last days perilous times would come and men would be ““lovers of their ownselves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, …””…

Who are we apeaking about here?

Demosthenes:

Additionally it states Peter "bore record of the departure from the faith when he worte to the saints saying: “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”

Which heresies won out here? What was changed?

Demosthenes:

It further states that the “Church established by the Redeemer was taken from the earth because of apostacy…” and “the great ecclesiastical organization that arose and claimed to be the Church of Christ was of gradual growth.” It commenced in the first century and continued…until the Church estabilished in the days of the apostles was no more to be found among men."
."

Where is this written in the scriptures? What about the Churches that the Apostles founded and those that proceded them?

Demosthenes:

“The simple principles of the Christian faith were embellished almost beyond recognition with pomp and mystic rites borrowed from pagan worship.”

What are the specifics in this quote?

QUOTE=Demosthenes] It continues but I think this gives a general idea of what has been taught.

Yes, this is what is taught, it is to bad to be built on these teachings. I have all of this sin in me so I understand. It is good to know that I have aplace to take it, to get rid of it. This is what the Church of Christ has always offered. Good posting. I would not want to think that I am above these things. I am not

 

[Demosthenes]

Catholic-RCIA

Your questions are good, unfortunately I am not up to the task of answering. I will leave that to the LDS participants. Most of the quotations that I noted are not footnoted. Chapter 2 of the book very specifically identifies characteristics of the Catholic Church in support of the GA.

Another example while discussing the rise of the Church of Rome under the paragraph heading "Changes in the Doctrines of the Church is as follows:

“The correct doctrine regarding the Godhead taught by Jesus Christ, was changed into a mystery. The ordinance of baptism was changed from burial in the water for the remission of sins, to sprinkling of a little water on the head. Sprinkling of infants, miscalled baptism, a custom which “is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit,” became a fixed and universal custom. Changes in the administration of the sacrament of the Lord’s supper were also introduced, and the doctrine advanced that the bread and wine became the flesh and blood of our crucified Redeemer, by transubstantiation.”

Again, I am not versed in the beliefs of the LDS and as such will leave your questions to be answered by those who are qualified.

However I must say that reading these few pages gave me a very unsettled feeling. While the quotes I have offered do little to substantiate the claim of GA they have offered me insight as to the possible POV of many of the LDS comments that I have read on this forum.

D

 

[allhers]

Zakuska:

I started a new thread on real presence, and ECFs.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1050059#post1050059

I see now that this person has been suspended, when I tried to click on the link they provided, it said I could not access that page.

 

[PaulDupre]

“The simple principles of the Christian faith were embellished almost beyond recognition with pomp and mystic rites borrowed from pagan worship.”

Reminds me of the Mormon temple ceremonies. Pay Lay Ale!!!

 

[amgid]

ben_dy:

A direct question, then - does the LDS Church specify when a “Great Apostasy” occurred …

I have already addressed this subject in the thread: “Why are Catholics so interested in the LDS faith?” See posts # 158, 174, 178, 179, 186, 189, 193, 213, 218, 229, 241, 260, 261, and 262, after which the discussion diverges into another direction. You will often find that when anti-Mormons and apostates are pushed into a corner on the subject of the Apostasy, and find no way to escape, they resort to slandering Joseph Smith, to which an appropriate response was given in post #258 of the same thread.

… and, if so, does it have anything to do with the Apostolic lineage of the Papacy? I’d really like to get back on topic, yet you’ve provided no clues as to whether Apostolic succession has anything to do with this “Great Apostasy” or not.

I would say that the Apostasy has everything to do with the “Apostolic succession,” but nothing to do with the “lineage of the Papacy”. The Pope cannot act as the Twelve Apostles. The Twelve Apostles form a quorum that acts as the governing authority of the Church. That quorum was intended to continue in the church. The Pope cannot single-handedly act as, or replace that quorum—assuming that he did have genuine apostolic authority, which we do not believe he has.

I feel as if the Catholics here have been very forthcoming as to the history of the Church yet we’ve heard nothing from LDS members about this doctrine of a “Great Apostasy” or even when it was supposed to have occurred. It’s a pretty useless topic of discussion when it’s so very one-sided.

As I said, I have already discussed that in another thread. See above. Unfortunately my time is limited, and I cannot read all the threads, and reply to as many posts as I would otherwise like to.

amgid

 

[amgid]

ben_dy:

Traditionally (and, had I not begun the sentence with the word, I would have written “small t” traditionally) John (brother of James, son of Zebedee, the beloved, the Evangelist, etc.) is the Apostle who is the last to die - BUT - somewhere 3 Nephi 28, when the three Nephites are allowed to “tarry” and not die, it’s said that this was also the case with John the beloved.

The next we hear about the same John and his tarrying is in D&C 7 (April 1829) and the revelation reiterates that John is given power over death yet he’s also spoken of as a ministering angel to minister to those who “dwell on the earth”. So - at this point - is John an immortal person of flesh and blood (which Nephi and the earlier verses of D&C seem to imply) or a person of spirit with physical attributes that can be summoned as needed (which is what ‘angel’ seems to imply)?

You seem to be confusing or misunderstanding the LDS definition of “angel”. Strictly speaking, an angel is a messenger, or a ministering servant. For example, in Revelations the Lord addresses the bishops of the seven churches as “angels” (Rev. 2). Even the devil has his own “angels” (Matt. 25:41; 2 Nephi 9:16; Mosiah 26:27; D&C 29:28, 37; 76:33, 36, 44). So just because it says that John will become a “ministering angel,” it does not mean that he must acquire some special “physical constitution” for him to be called an angel. The three Nephite disciples who were promised to “tarry” had also acquired “angelic” attributes:

3 Nephi 28:

30 And they {the three Nephite disciples} are as the angels of God, and if they shall pray unto the Father in the name of Jesus they can show themselves unto whatsoever man it seemeth them good.

31 Therefore, great and marvelous works shall be wrought by them, before the great and coming day when all people must surely stand before the judgment-seat of Christ;

32 Yea even among the Gentiles shall there be a great and marvelous work wrought by them, before that judgment day.

33 And if ye had all the scriptures which give an account of all the marvelous works of Christ, ye would, according to the words of Christ, know that these things must surely come.

D&C 27 (August 1830) has Jesus seeming to speak of the ordination of of JS (and OC?) to be apostles: ordained by Christ, yet ‘activated’ by Peter, James, and John. Is this the same John?

Yes, it is the same John.

If he’s immortal flesh-and-bones man who has not tasted death, what’s the need for Peter and James to make an appearance? Couldn’t John (providing he had reliable transportation - and what good ministering angel wouldn’t?) have just come along and actually ordained JS?

And who are you to presume to tell God what to do and how to do it? If that is how God chose to ordain Joseph, that is His business. What makes you think that God has an obligation to give you an explanation for everything that He does, and how He does it? If you want my intelligent guess, I would say that it is God’s way of doing things that He always provides two or three witnesses for whatever He does; and this event falls well into that pattern.

Again - am I getting my Johns confused or am I missing something?

No, you are not getting your Johns confused; but you appear to be pretty confused in your head!

amgid

 

[dennisknapp]

amgid:

.** You will often find that when anti-Mormons and apostates are pushed into a corner on the subject of the Apostasy, and find no way to escape, they resort to slandering Joseph Smith, to which an appropriate response was given in post #258 of the same thread.**

amgid

Yep, you really have us pushed into a corner with all your lack of evidence, circular reasoning, and arguments from silence…

The facts about Smith speak for themselves, period.

So, do you care to show us some evidence for this “Great Apostasy?”

Peace

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Just so we make things clear, I haven’t read all of the posts between now and the last time I posted, just a few.

No it says he made swords in the new world that were the same type as the sword of Laban. He speaks of the great abundance of metals here in the americas and how he made STEEL.

Question: When steel is mentioned in the OT what does it usually refer to? Other than that, there is no evidence to support that Nephi’s swords were made of steel.

It sure looks like the same type. His descriptions are detailed. and I don’t see anyone claiming that atlatls are really what’s meant by bow so that’s ludicrous.

Well, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen an altatl that looks like a bow, or works like a bow, have you? However, a macana looks and behaves just like a sword, only that it’s missing a cross-guard (which is no problem, since some steel swords don’t have them either) and it’s made of wood and stone. Have you ever heard of a sword that’s made of wood or plastic? They’re usually toys or practice swords, but they’re still referred to as swords. Bottom line: if it looks like a sword, is used like a sword, and performs like a sword, it’s probably a sword. The LotR movies are not the definitive source on what a sword is.

Please, steel that’s under the ocean can still be recognized for what it is. we are talking about enough swords to kill over 2 million people. Just vanished huh?

You know, a Mongol naval fleet of 4,000 ships sunk off the coast of Japan in the 13th century AD and the site has been found recently. However, the indicator was wood, not steel. No metal was found, although the Mongols certainly used plenty of it. I guess that after several hundred years at the bottom of the ocean it just kind of… disappeared… Are you aware of any case in which steel/iron has lasted on the bottom of the ocean for more than 500 years, nevermind 2,000?

The same place JS was referring to. we can see in his writings that he meant the one where he got the plates. However, show me any hill in the western hemisphere where a battle of that size took place and left no trace of weaponry.

True that Joseph referred to the hill near his home as Cumorah, but he never positively identified it as being the hill where the last great battle took place. Besides, even if he did we still know that prophets can be mistaken. So, a very popular notion is that that location is NOT actually the hill Cumorah mentioned in the BoM. At best now we have educated guesses as to where that Mesoamerican hill might have been. So as for that, traces of old architecture and weaponry cover much of Mesoamerica.

FARMS is a spin factory not science. how about Boyd Packer and the september 6? LDS wants members to be educated so that they can make money. (not a bad thing) but they don’t want members digging into history objectively. Packer says you have to show the hand of God in every moment of church history or you are helping Satan.

Can you show me a link to that talk? I’d like to see the context.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Well if the apologists would actually make a verifiable claim I would rebut it. The problem is that Jefflindsay and FARMS and FAIR just deal in “plausibilities”. They claim that it “could have happened” so it must be true. how about michael coe and thomas stuart ferguson. those are good references. BYU’s own Ray matheny. and this:

So, you want us to try to prove the BoM true? It can’t be done, just as you can’t prove Catholicism true, and you’re a fool if you think you can.

This is the kind of thing I’ve seen among antis and in their arguments. We don’t try to prove anything to them, yet they feel it’s their mission to prove us wrong. So, we show them how their logic is flawed. We don’t try to create one mental picture of the world as it may have been in the past and stick with it, because we simply don’t have enough information yet, but we refute what they say, and that’s more than enough. I’m not sure why you think these plausibilities are bad.

If I accused your friend of stealing something and you wished to defend him, yet didn’t know where he had been at the time, that wouldn’t stop you. You would say all you could about his good character and how you trusted him; so if I continued demanding to know his alibi would that be reasonable of me? You could say, “Well, he may have been at the movies, or with his family at the time, but I’m not exactly sure.” Would your lack of knowledge about that make your friend any more guilty, especially if I wouldn’t believe you even if you gave me his alibi? I really doubt it. It’s logic reasoning, not shifty story-changing and wild guesses to protect someone you really don’t know of being guilty or innocent. So while I might accuse, my accusations are phony, having no base. This is the same thinking involved in Mormon apologetics, and just about any apologetics, and it’s certainly not faulty or wrong.

I’m still waiting for someone to make a verifiable claim that is recognized by a non-LDS scholar. The big point in all of this is wher’s your GA proof? you wish to claim that there isn’t enough evidence to PROVE that the BoM is false so it must be true. On the other hand you accept the GA just because JS said so.

I wish what-now? I never said that not being able to prove the BoM false means it’s true, neither do I believe that. I never claimed that I could prove the apostasy either. Neither do I blindly accept that apostasy because the Prophet said so. True that he did, and his testimony is vital, but I also believe in it because it makes logical sense to me, because of my study of the Bible and because of the moral and philosophical concepts it presents, and because it makes a lot of other stuff fit. Many intelligent and informed people I know share my beliefs. It makes sense to me. If you think I’m throwing all reason out the window when I believe in it, think again. I don’t intent to try to prove it to you, but I do intend to help you and the other Catholics here understand what bases the doctrine has in the LDS faith. Feel free to join in the discussion me and Ben are having, but behave.

I can’t get to answer the other posts right now, but I’ll try to later tonight.

 

[Tmaque]

Chris Jodrey:

I’m not sure I’ve ever seen an altatl that looks like a bow, or works like a bow, have you? However, a macana looks and behaves just like a sword, only that it’s missing a cross-guard (which is no problem, since some steel swords don’t have them either) and it’s made of wood and stone. Have you ever heard of a sword that’s made of wood or plastic? They’re usually toys or practice swords, but they’re still referred to as swords. Bottom line: if it looks like a sword, is used like a sword, and performs like a sword, it’s probably a sword. The LotR movies are not the definitive source on what a sword is.

Are you referring to a macuahuitl? This is what they looked like:
famsi.org/research/pohl/images/aztec4figure09.jpg

Could this commonly be called a sword? I don’t think so. If you asked the average person what they would call it, most would say, “it’s a club with sharp stones embedded in it”. It is not a sword in form and it is not a sword in usage. It can only be used to slash with, it could not pierce. In fact that’s one of the reasons it was largely ineffective against the spaniards.

From www.famsi.org
"Why didn’t the fierce Aztecs fare better against the Spanish? One reason is that the macuahuitl didn’t have a tip and therefore couldn’t pierce; it was designed only for slashing. Another reason was ‘reach’ – macuahuitls were about the same length as a warclub – an adept Spanish swordsman could fend off an Aztec warrior simply by ducking a sword swing and then running the Aztec warrior through. (It was not until the late 1700s that steel completely replaced obsidian in Mexican technology. "

The real problem here is the simple fact that Joseph Smith uses words in the Book of Mormon to describe things that could have been described much better using different terminology. Why say “sword” when you mean club? Why say “horse” when you mean deer, tapir, or llama? When Joseph Smith said the word “sword” to Oliver Cowdery did he picture in his mind a macuahuitl? When he said “horse”, did he picture a tapir? Of course not. That means that God then used words which were much more confusing than they needed to be. Why would God do that?

The obvious reason that these words are in the BOM is that Joseph Smith had no idea that there was no steel in pre-Columbian America, no horses in pre-Columbian America, no silk in pre-Columbian America and on and on. Joseph Smith made these assumptions when he authored the Book of Mormon. That is the simplest and best answer. There are just too many hoops to jump through to make the BOM believable. If it was just one or two things you’d have an argument. There are just too many inconsistencies to explain away. Taken as a whole, it’s simply unbelievable.

 

[majick275]

Chris Jodrey:

Question: When steel is mentioned in the OT what does it usually refer to? Other than that, there is no evidence to support that Nephi’s swords were made of steel.

Except for Nephi telling us repeatedly that he made steel and used it to make weapons of war. He differentiates between brass, cooper, iron and steel as does the entire BoM. It tells that armor and shields were steel as well. For space sake look at this:
evidence.info/cults/mormarch.pdf
Chris Jodrey:

Well, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen an altatl that looks like a bow, or works like a bow, have you? However, a macana looks and behaves just like a sword, only that it’s missing a cross-guard (which is no problem, since some steel swords don’t have them either) and it’s made of wood and stone. Have you ever heard of a sword that’s made of wood or plastic? They’re usually toys or practice swords, but they’re still referred to as swords. Bottom line: if it looks like a sword, is used like a sword, and performs like a sword, it’s probably a sword. The LotR movies are not the definitive source on what a sword is.

ah but nephi tells us that he used the sword of Laban as the model for his swords. The BoM gives sufficient detail in the battles to show us these swords being drawn and running people through. (the macahuitl is NOT a thrusting weapon) We are told in it that armor and shields protected the nephites from lamanite swords. If we are using mesoamerican, south american or north american weaponry and armor of that time period we don’t get that result.
Chris Jodrey:

You know, a Mongol naval fleet of 4,000 ships sunk off the coast of Japan in the 13th century AD and the site has been found recently. However, the indicator was wood, not steel. No metal was found, although the Mongols certainly used plenty of it. I guess that after several hundred years at the bottom of the ocean it just kind of… disappeared… Are you aware of any case in which steel/iron has lasted on the bottom of the ocean for more than 500 years, nevermind 2,000?

Yes and certainly brass as well. You will find multiple examples in the mediteranean sea. here’s a good example:
tamu.edu/univrel/aggiedaily/news/stories/03/120303-6.html
Chris Jodrey:

True that Joseph referred to the hill near his home as Cumorah, but he never positively identified it as being the hill where the last great battle took place. Besides, even if he did we still know that prophets can be mistaken. So, a very popular notion is that that location is NOT actually the hill Cumorah mentioned in the BoM. At best now we have educated guesses as to where that Mesoamerican hill might have been. So as for that, traces of old architecture and weaponry cover much of Mesoamerica.

look at the post with the letter from the first presidency. JS spoke quite clearly about multiple locations in north America matching up with BoM places. I think the great lakes theory is most accurate and the maps of that area show us the names which inspired JS BoM stories.
Chris Jodrey:

Can you show me a link to that talk? I’d like to see the context.

I’d prefer to give you a pro LDS link to it but am pressed for time so grabbed the first yahoo search:
xmission.com/~country/reason/mantle.htm

 

[Chris-WA]

amgid:

You will often find that when anti-Mormons and apostates are pushed into a corner on the subject of the Apostasy, and find no way to escape, they resort to slandering Joseph Smith, to which an appropriate response was given in post #258 of the same thread.

I’ve read most of those posts and I have yet to see anyone cornered on the subject of the Apostacy. Mostly there’s been a tremendous lack of logical arguments put forth by LDS here in support of the Apostacy.

I would say that the Apostasy has everything to do with the “Apostolic succession,” but nothing to do with the “lineage of the Papacy”. The Pope cannot act as the Twelve Apostles. The Twelve Apostles form a quorum that acts as the governing authority of the Church. That quorum was intended to continue in the church. The Pope cannot single-handedly act as, or replace that quorum—assuming that he did have genuine apostolic authority, which we do not believe he has.

That’s absurd! Peter did not require a “quorum” to make a decision. And you have no evidence that a “quorum” was to continue in the church as a governing authority. Even Joseph Smith didn’t require a “quorum” to act. Where are you getting this stuff from?

 

[ben_dy]

And the description in 1 Nephi of 13 “a church which is most abominable above all other churches” has always seemed to me to be a direct attack against the Catholic church…

4 And it came to pass that I saw among the nations of the Gentiles the formation of a great church.
5 And the angel said unto me: Behold the formation of a church which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity.
6 And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it.
7 And I also saw gold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and fine-twined linen, and all manner of precious clothing; and I saw many harlots.
8 And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church.

Although my LDS friends are quick to deny that this - and other references - are specific to the Catholic Church, save for Orthodox, Anglican, etc., what other church liturgy does, indeed, include “gold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and fine-twined linen, and all manner of precious clothing” (although not harlots - unless this was some sort of early trad reference to female EM’s and lectors!).

But silks - in Jaredite times?

 

[ben_dy]

amgid:

You remember what the Lord said through the prophet Malachi to the Levite priests after the captivity who disrespected the sacrifice of the Lord? This is what He said to them:

Malachi 2:

3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.
It looks like you have already had your fair share of that, and you don’t seem to be able to know how to wash it off.

amgid

amgid,

I generally enjoy your posts - but you have such a difficult time remaining civil that I feel it best to ignore you and your posts from this time forward. It’s resort to this sort of offensive attack that leads me to believe that if you would stoop so low as to attack me for what I have done - asking clarification for areas of LDS understanding in an earnest manner - then you may stoop even lower to those who are genuinely anti-Mormon. I almost hate to say that it took a personal attack for me to be dismissive of your lack of charity - it has been evident since you began posting - but I simply refuse to converse or even take seriously those who cannot argue civilly.

 

[majick275]

if you’ve read his posts then you know he likes to hang out on the evangelical bashboards where tehy seem to revel in that over the top counting coup type of deprecation. He said he comes here cuz it’s fun.