On The Ropes

[Sir]

How do you know when LDS-critics are on the ropes?

You respond with bold truth (in red) and it gets wiped clean from the record.


Dear Apollos,

You have received an infraction.....

Reason: Rule 22: Divisive/Inflammatory Don't waste the time of the board participants by intentionally being divisive. A moderator will determine what is or is not considered divisive. There are some who come to the boards only to cause dissension and confusion.

This infraction is worth 10 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4634717


Quote Originally Posted by CBB MBC View Post

I'm not sure what your point here is?

Russ' point is to claim the LDS church is eventually going to proclaim that gay marriage is okay, or that ****sexuality is not a sin.

Sadly, though, what Russ is actually fighting AGAINST, is the notion that a church SHOULD be accepting of LGBT members and offer them encouragement. That doesn't mean to accept their lifestyle as being of God, but to remind them they are still children of God and can draw closer to the Savior Jesus Christ and turn to Him for support in dealing with their circumstance.

Russ' church probably condemns gays and encourages them to commit suicide, since that seems to be why he has a beef with Mormons that are doing the opposite. No wonder he won't tell anyone what church he attends! I wouldn't either!

All the best,
Christian Discussion Forums | CARM Christian Forums | Christian Chat

Hardly seems like anything remotely offensive or insulting to another poster. Someone asked why Russ was posting about Steve Young speaking at a LGBT conference. And we have seen people like Russ claim that the LDS church is on its way to accepting ****sexuality as okay.

They call THAT divisive and inflammatory?! Sheeeeeesh, they might as well shut the whole forum down then if that is what goes as being divisive and inflammatory.

But interestingly enough the moderators did something I've not seen them do lately. They deleted my post and they also redacted it from Russ' quote of it (something they usually don't do so you can still see why someone's post was deleted). And so there is no record of it anywhere except my PM, not even a little icon on the thread index stating a post had been deleted. It's like they are trying to secretly delete posts that are so truthful and pointed and not leave any trace of them. LOLOLOL.......

[Sir]

Oh, and because if this little gem from Sunday, they went ahead and banned me for a few days.

Never amazed at what anti-Mormons are allowed to say and what's deemed "insulting" when a Mormon says it:


Dear Apollos,

You have received an infraction at Christian Discussion Forums | CARM Christian Forums | Christian Chat.

Reason: Rule 12: Insulted Other Member(s). Attacking users. Rule 25: Freedom of Speech: Freedom of speech here comes with the responsibility to speak decently within the parameters of the rules.By registering you are agreeing not to be vulgar, divisive,insulting,profane, etc. (read all the rules). It helps to try and treat others as you want to be treated. (Luke 6:31)
-------
Rule 12: Insulted Other Member(s). Attacking users.
-------

This infraction is worth 10 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4621979


Quote Originally Posted by GloryToGOD View Post

You can't become a new creature in a puppet you have named "jesus christ". The Mormon "holy spirit" is fake. Oh and by the way, so are your "heavenly parents".

GTG

Relax. We know you were just building a platform to spew vitriol and anti-Mormon pla***udes, not truly seeking answers to questions.


All the best,
Christian Discussion Forums | CARM Christian Forums | Christian Chat

[RealFakeHair]

Oh, and because if this little gem from Sunday, they went ahead and banned me for a few days.

Never amazed at what anti-Mormons are allowed to say and what's deemed "insulting" when a Mormon says it:
Sir, you are banned! Oh shoot that didn't work, but really, I'd never banned anyone for their thoughts. That is what liberals do.

[Sir]

I'd never banned anyone for their thoughts. That is what liberals do.

True.......

[Libby]

Ahem. :) I happen to be a liberal and consider myself very tolerant of what others have to say (unless it's racist or bigoted in some way). Truly, some of the most intolerant boards I have ever posted on (like CARM) are run by conservative Christians.

Sir, I would not have batted an eye at what you said, let alone banned you. Seemed quite mild.

[Sir]

Ahem. :) I happen to be a liberal and consider myself very tolerant of what others have to say (unless it's racist or bigoted in some way). Truly, some of the most intolerant boards I have ever posted on (like CARM) are run by conservative Christians.

Not all liberals. Just the ones who want to shut down free speech (Fairness Doctrine and such). :)


Sir, I would not have batted an eye at what you said, let alone banned you. Seemed quite mild.

That's why I just chuckle. LDS-critics are quite free to tell the LDS we are liars, brainwashed, deceived, psychotic, etc. But the moment you simply call out an LDS-critic on what he is doing you are considered to be divisive and attacking them.

Laugh and carry on, is all.

[James Banta]

Not all liberals. Just the ones who want to shut down free speech (Fairness Doctrine and such). :)



That's why I just chuckle. LDS-critics are quite free to tell the LDS we are liars, brainwashed, deceived, psychotic, etc. But the moment you simply call out an LDS-critic on what he is doing you are considered to be divisive and attacking them.

Laugh and carry on, is all.

You have laughed a lot at me as I show mormonism in the light of the Bible.. Show me Biblically why you do so.. IHS jim

[Sir]

You have laughed a lot at me as I show mormonism in the light of the Bible.. Show me Biblically why you do so.. IHS jim

Um......I don't recall this being about you personally James. No need to try and make it so.

[nrajeffreturns]

Ahem. :) I happen to be a liberal and consider myself very tolerant of what others have to say (unless it's racist or bigoted in some way). Truly, some of the most intolerant boards I have ever posted on (like CARM) are run by conservative Christians.

Sir, I would not have batted an eye at what you said, let alone banned you. Seemed quite mild.

Good points, Libby. Speaking of ridiculously unfair punishments from Carm's immoderate moderators:

Catherine A. had made this accusation:

"...you Mormons try to equate your own selves with Jesus..."

and then Biblos quoted my reply, and then for some crazy reason demanded that I list one false accusation she had made, so....


Dear NRA-Jeff,You have received an infraction at Christian Discussion Forums

Rule 12: Insulted Other Member(s). Attacking users.
This infraction is worth 10 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4625508
Originally Posted by biblos
What Accusations?


The one I just quoted. Did you fail to read my post where I listed one of her false accusations? How could that be, when you obviously quoted it???


and that was somehow an attack on someone. But HER ORIGINAL insult/attack

"you Mormons try to equate your own selves with Jesus"

WASN'T one.

A-mazing.

[Libby]

"...you Mormons try to equate your own selves with Jesus..."

James was telling me, on another thread, that it was okay to compare oneself to God, because we are supposed to be following him.

[James Banta]

James was telling me, on another thread, that it was okay to compare oneself to God, because we are supposed to be following him.

Not just that Libby. I was saying that we should allow His perfection to reveal our sinfulness and in doing that show our clear need for His grace.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

James was telling me, on another thread, that it was okay to compare oneself to God, because we are supposed to be following him.

Yeah, well, I guess it's okay to do it unless you're LDS.....

[James Banta]

Yeah, well, I guess it's okay to do it unless you're LDS.....

What Jesus will you compare yourself to? The Mighty God, the everlasting Father or the created Jesus taught by Joseph Smith? By comparing one's self to the Biblical Jesus we can see our sinful self that needs His forgiveness. The other well he couldn't even hold the Church together as Smith did. He is a weakling that defeat the early 1840's mobs of Missouri requiring God to take a commandment to build a temple in Far West back and leave Missouri to run to Illinois. Is that even the same god that gave Smith the Gold plates that was "translated" into the BofM.. A believer in that God, Nephi, said that God gives no commandment to us that He doesn't make possible to keep. I guess I am more a believer in the God of Nephi that Smith was, or that today's mormonism is.. Since you deny That God (2Nephi 31:21) you can't possible compare yourself to that Jesus, the Jesus of the Bible that is confirmed in the BofM.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Well, we could compare Joseph Smith with another J.C.--John Calvin--if you want to....

[James Banta]

Ok do that.. Unless you want to have Smith name dragged through the mud again, Lets keep it to what each taught concerning God.. John Calvin agreed with the scripture in the doctrine of Predestination, Smith denied it.. Calvin agreed with the Bible on the nature of God That He is one God in The Father, Son. and Holy Spirit. Smith taught 3 Gods.. Calvin agreed with the Bible on the priesthood of all believers and one High Priest who is Jesus. Smith denied the bible reinsti tuting the Priesthood of Aaron and adding offices of Church leadership to a Priesthood that claimed many High Priests.. Calvin agreed with the Bible that Salvation is gained by God's grace through Faith in Jesus, Smith taught that the Bible is wrong and that total obedience is also required. Calvin agreed with the Bible that Jesus is the creator of all things even the spirits of all mankind each formed within that person. Smith taught that we were all created (Born) of God the Father long before we existed as a mortal person. I see Calvin agreeing with the word of God I see Smith teaching something entirely different.. IHS jim

[RealFakeHair]

Well, we could compare Joseph Smith with another J.C.--John Calvin--if you want to....

I would compare Joseph Smith jr. To Madoff, or Bill Clinton, but never to John Calvin.

[James Banta]

I would compare Joseph Smith jr. To Madoff, or Bill Clinton, but never to John Calvin.

That's if he whats to start commenting the Character if each man.. I don't really think he wants to get into a character debate.. Smith never had enough character to be discussed.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Um......I don't recall this being about you personally James. No need to try and make it so.

I never said it was.. IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

That's if he whats to start commenting the Character if each man.. I don't really think he wants to get into a character debate.. Smith never had enough character to be discussed.. IHS jim

I dont know this Madoff,...but you do see the clear fact that both Bill Clinton and Joe Smith are horny dogs to be sure....

[James Banta]

I dont know this Madoff,...but you do see the clear fact that both Bill Clinton and Joe Smith are horny dogs to be sure....

Bernard Madoff operated the largest Ponzi scheme, short of mormonism, in history. IHS jim

[RealFakeHair]

I dont know this Madoff,...but you do see the clear fact that both Bill Clinton and Joe Smith are horny dogs to be sure....

Similarity between Bill Clinton, and Joseph Smith jr. Are intresting to say the least.
Both men craved power, and thought of nothing to get it.
Both men used women like you might use a paper towel, use it and then throw it away.
Both men used unsavory ways to gain in richest.
Both men to this day are beloved by their followers.

[nrajeffreturns]

I would compare Joseph Smith jr. To Madoff, or Bill Clinton, but never to John Calvin.

Don't be so harsh on Calvin, Fakey: He's not THAT much worse than Clinton and Madoff. I mean, sure, Calvin got people killed and never really repented of it, but heck, Madoff and Clinton both were indirectly responsible for deaths, too.

Plus, Clinton and Madoff conned lots of people into believing junk that was false--Clinton conned half the USA into swallowing liberalism, and Madoff conned thousands of people out of billions of dollars that he used to live like a billionaire. And Calvin conned hundreds of millions of Christians into believing in TULIP.

So all 3 of those guys are roughly in the same league.

[nrajeffreturns]

Bernard Madoff operated the largest Ponzi scheme, shirt of mormonism, in history. IHS jim


There you go again, Jim, making untrue claims.

Madoff's is listed as the largest:

"As of December 2008 the losses were estimated to be $65 billion, making it the largest investor fraud in history

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

Mormonism isn't even on the list, ANYWHERE.

[RealFakeHair]

There you go again, Jim, making untrue claims.

Madoff's is listed as the largest:

"As of December 2008 the losses were estimated to be $65 billion, making it the largest investor fraud in history

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

Mormonism isn't even on the list, ANYWHERE.

Hum? In a way Mormonism is on top of the list... In the Holy Bible it goes something like this. (What would a man gain if he lose his soul...or something)

[nrajeffreturns]

Hum? In a way Mormonism is on top of the list... In the Holy Bible it goes something like this. (What would a man gain if he lose his soul...or something)

How many people were conned into participating in the Crusades?

[RealFakeHair]

How many people were conned into participating in the Crusades?

That's another story. However lets just say, Joseph Smith jr. offered godhood for his fancy, and the Pope offered indulgence. Now which would I have taken? If Joseph Smith jr. wanted my sister-in-law, and the Pope let me have a sin or two on the side; I'd take up Joe's offer.

[nrajeffreturns]

Both offers sound pretty good to me.

[James Banta]

There you go again, Jim, making untrue claims.

Madoff's is listed as the largest:

"As of December 2008 the losses were estimated to be $65 billion, making it the largest investor fraud in history

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

Mormonism isn't even on the list, ANYWHERE.

What is the price of your soul? Multiply that by the millions that have bought into the lies of Smith over the years and mormonism is by far much more serious than anything Madoff ever could even imagine.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

How many people were conned into participating in the Crusades?

Too many and like the LDS people they believed a lie congered up by godless men.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Don't be so harsh on Calvin, Fakey: He's not THAT much worse than Clinton and Madoff. I mean, sure, Calvin got people killed and never really repented of it, but heck, Madoff and Clinton both were indirectly responsible for deaths, too.

Plus, Clinton and Madoff conned lots of people into believing junk that was false--Clinton conned half the USA into swallowing liberalism, and Madoff conned thousands of people out of billions of dollars that he used to live like a billionaire. And Calvin conned hundreds of millions of Christians into believing in TULIP.

So all 3 of those guys are roughly in the same league.

Smith formed an army and set them out in rebellion against the duly appointed authorities of the state (whether they were moral or not the were the legal authority in Missouri)and killed several.. That was MURDER.

As for Calvin, the person most often referenced by the "Calvin was a murderer" crowd is a fellow named Michael Servetus. Here's the Wikipedia entry describing him:

Michael Servetus (also Miguel Servet or Miguel Serveto; 29 September 1511 - 27 October 1553) was a Spanish (Aragonese) theologian, physician, cartographer, and humanist and the first European to describe the function of pulmonary circulation. His interests included many sciences: astronomy and meteorology, geography, jurisprudence, study of the Bible, mathematics, anatomy, and medicine. He is renowned in the history of several of these fields, particularly medicine and theology. He participated in the Protestant Reformation and later developed a non-trinitarian Christology. Condemned by Catholics and Protestants alike, he was burnt at the stake by order of the Protestant Geneva governing council as a heretic.

The Roman Church was intertwined in every aspect of social and political life. the church wielded the sword of governmental authority to suppress schismatics, dissenters, and those deemed heretics. This practice was known as "Sacralism" - a merger of church and state until the two are virtually indistinguishable. As the Latin saying described it, "Cuius region, eius religio." In other words, "Who has region, decides religion." It was common for the ruler of an area to determine the religion of his realm based on his own faith. The Reformation was not a start-from-scratch project. The only church governance they had known was the combination of church and state. In their effort to establish the theology of salvation by grace (in opposition to Rome's works-based soteriology), they failed to fully and utterly reform every aspect of Christian life and ecclesiastic behavior. The belief that denial of the Trinity and/or Incarnation should be viewed as a capital crime in a Christian state was part of Calvin's and Geneva's medieval inheritance; Calvin did not invent it. It was the Law of the land. It was no more murder than today's execution of a murderer.. And such execution in Calvin's era were not His decision but that of the Protestant Geneva governing council. The government. Who are you to question a government of another people in another time and in another place?

Smith broke the law Calvin established it. Calvin and the Protestant Geneva governing council were the Law, even if you believe they were corrupt. Smith was a law breaker of the established law, even if you believe it was corrupt.. Jesus taught us to render to Caesar, Smith falsely believed he was Caesar.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Smith formed an army and set them out in rebellion against the duly appointed authorities of the state (whether they were moral or not the were the legal authority in Missouri)
Sometimes challenging the state's uncons***utional or immoral acts is the right thing to do. Just ask Washington, Jefferson, & Adams. The British tyranny over the colonies was duly appointed by the king.


and killed several.. That was MURDER.
I'd say that at least several people were killed during the American Revolution. That was MURDER, according to you. So every Presidents' Day, we get the day off work, put up our flags, and celebrate the MURDERERS who founded our great nation????

Interesting.


Who are you to question a government of another people in another time and in another place?
So you don't question decisions to execute certain people that were made by the government of Jerusalem, around 33 A.D., because it was another people, time, and place?


Smith broke the law Calvin established it.
But STALIN, MUSSOLINI, and HITLER established laws, too--you're claiming that obeying them was the right thing to do, and defying them was the wrong thing to do?

I guess the USA really committed a huge sin in fighting against corrupt governments during WW2.

[James Banta]

[nrajeffreturns;147348]Sometimes challenging the state's uncons***utional or immoral acts is the right thing to do. Just ask Washington, Jefferson, & Adams. The British tyranny over the colonies was duly appointed by the king.

The States acts, Yes, it's authority NO! Did Jesus agree with the cruel acts of Rome pressed onto Israel? NO, did He teach overthrow of Rome? NO! Were the founding fathers right in their actions against the crown, as an American I say YES, as a Christian I say NO.. The Church has had to live under many a tyrant. Until their faith was outlawed they were good citizens. Only in their faith did that resist Rome. Even in their executions did they submit to it's authority.. Never did a church not even one of them take up arms is resistant to the power of the state..


I'd say that at least several people were killed during the American Revolution. That was MURDER, according to you. So every Presidents' Day, we get the day off work, put up our flags, and celebrate the MURDERERS who founded our great nation???? Interesting.

What does Jesus teach His children to do when we are oppressed?


Matthew 5:44
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you


So you don't question decisions to execute certain people that were made by the government of Jerusalem, around 33 A.D., because it was another people, time, and place?

Did He command that we take up weapons and end that persecution? Nope he said Love them.. I intend in following that command a far as my flesh allows me to do so.. I am just as evil minded as Washington, Jefferson, & Adams. I don't know how much I could stand until I allowed the flesh to rules over the Love Jesus has created in me.. So did Rome have authority to execute the Lord, Yes. Were they right and righteous in their judgments, No. That does change our responsibility before God to such a government..


But STALIN, MUSSOLINI, and HITLER established laws, too--you're claiming that obeying them was the right thing to do, and defying them was the wrong thing to do?

To agree with their cruelty would be wrong to disobey the law established even by them, yes that would be wrong.

Romans 13:1
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.



I guess the USA really committed a huge sin in fighting against corrupt governments during WW2.

Is the US Government a being or a man made inst i tution? While we should work to make it moral and Christian it is still invented by fallen men and is therefore imperfect. It must deal with other imperfect governments. One must work that out with God according to their own convictions.. You can see mine.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Those are some interesting points you made, Jim.

[James Banta]

Those are some interesting points you made, Jim.

These are just my feeling since I became a Christian, I don't come down on antone else for believing different than that.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

There you go again, Jim, making untrue claims.

Madoff's is listed as the largest:

"As of December 2008 the losses were estimated to be $65 billion, making it the largest investor fraud in history

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

Mormonism isn't even on the list, ANYWHERE.

And yet Smith was able to command men in the name of his god to spend years in his service, building churches, temples, and even houses for Smith and his family. The gave him a money to live on, and even shared their wives with him, you would call it for eternity and not for time but really what does that matter? They still gave Smith the women that loved and cared for all their lives.. And why because Smith told them to based on his position as the prophet of a god that kept changing his qualifications for salvation and exaltation.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

And yet Smith was able to command men in the name of his god to spend years in his service, building churches, temples, and even houses for Smith and his family. The gave him a money to live on, and even shared their wives with him, you would call it for eternity and not for time but really what does that matter? They still gave Smith the women that loved and cared for all their lives.. And why because Smith told them to based on his position as the prophet of a god that kept changing his qualifications for salvation and exaltation.. IHS jim

Gee, that sounds like the story of Moses and how he got millions of Jews to follow him everywhere, do whatever he told them, give him all their gold, etc.

So you're saying that Moses ran the biggest scam in human history?

[RealFakeHair]

Gee, that sounds like the story of Moses and how he got millions of Jews to follow him everywhere, do whatever he told them, give him all their gold, etc.

So you're saying that Moses ran the biggest scam in human history?
You missed one point. Moses got his people to the Promise Land, Joseph Smith jr. Got his people to the middle of no-were-USA. Endependence Missouri. NOW that's funny!

[nrajeffreturns]

You missed one point. Moses got his people to the Promise Land
Actually, Moses was dead before Israel made it to the promised land.


Joseph Smith jr. Got his people to the middle of no-were-USA. Endependence Missouri. NOW that's funny!
Joseph Smith was dead before the LDS made it to the Utah Territory. So he and Moses have a lot in common, it seems.

[James Banta]

Actually, Moses was dead before Israel made it to the promised land.


Joseph Smith was dead before the LDS made it to the Utah Territory. So he and Moses have a lot in common, it seems.

Moses was banned from entering the Land because he disobeyed God.. Is that why Smith was killed? Was His sin polygamy (Jacob 2:24) or was it for given a false prophecy in the case of the temple in Far West (Deut 18:20-22)? Smith had identified Missouri as the Promised Land not Utah, so your comparison here in a bit off center no matter how you look at it.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Gee, that sounds like the story of Moses and how he got millions of Jews to follow him everywhere, do whatever he told them, give him all their gold, etc.

So you're saying that Moses ran the biggest scam in human history?

If Moses would have come up with a "Because I say that God has spoken through me story" instead of the people seeing the actions of God that came though him to the people you would have a point.. But Smith never turned a river to blood. He never protected the people from the angel of death, never parted a large body of water so that His people could walk through on dry land. As soon as you can identify such marvelous works of God that were worked though Joseph Smith let me know and we will have something to talk about.. Oh writing a book doesn't cut it! IHS jim

[RealFakeHair]

Actually, Moses was dead before Israel made it to the promised land.


Joseph Smith was dead before the LDS made it to the Utah Territory. So he and Moses have a lot in common, it seems.

Yes, yes he was, but as he looked over the top of the mountain he said, "Okay see here this is the Promise land younder."

[Billyray]

Sir, I would not have batted an eye at what you said, let alone banned you. Seemed quite mild.
Can you tell me why I was banned from MADB?

[nrajeffreturns]

Can you tell me why I was banned from MADB?

My guess is that they didn't like something that you said.

[Billyray]

My guess is that they didn't like something that you said.

I am sure that they didn't like most of what I said. But what rule did I break that resulted in me being permanently banned?

[nrajeffreturns]

I am sure that they didn't like most of what I said. But what rule did I break that resulted in me being permanently banned?

Heck if I know. I wasn't there, I don't go there, and I am not familiar with their rules, nor am I familiar with what you said.

[James Banta]

There you go again, Jim, making untrue claims.

Madoff's is listed as the largest:

"As of December 2008 the losses were estimated to be $65 billion, making it the largest investor fraud in history

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

Mormonism isn't even on the list, ANYWHERE.

Since Smith was denied as a prophet through his own false prophecies (D&C 84), All that he taught should not be listened to (Deut 18:20-22).. Since he still maintained a position of authority over the LDS people they were all taking in by lies and those people over the years have given his work many billions of dollars.. Making his (Smith's) ponzi scheme one of the largest ever perpetrated.. IHS jim

[Pa Pa]

Ahem. :) I happen to be a liberal and consider myself very tolerant of what others have to say (unless it's racist or bigoted in some way). Truly, some of the most intolerant boards I have ever posted on (like CARM) are run by conservative Christians.

Sir, I would not have batted an eye at what you said, let alone banned you. Seemed quite mild.
Libby a better word than conservative Christian is the cult within Christianity...Calvinism. Never seen a site run by CARM, unless the owner was a Calvinist. For those who believe in limited atonement as they do will find themselves the ones who it will be limited too. :(

[James Banta]

Libby a better word than conservative Christian is the cult within Christianity...Calvinism. Never seen a site run by CARM, unless the owner was a Calvinist. For those who believe in limited atonement as they do will find themselves the ones who it will be limited too. :(

Limited Atonement.. Doesn't Mormonism also limit the atonement in differing ways? Generally it is said to save all peoples from the effects of Adams sin. After this it is limited only to those that repent.. or is the atonement provided to all, even those that deny Jesus? No, the LDS accept the Calvinist teaching that the atonement of Jesus is limited to only a select few.. There is even a teaching in mormonism for for ordination as to a person's mission in life (Jeremiah was “ordained" a prophet unto the nations, before his birth. (Jer. 1:5). Elder McConkie wrote that preexistence appointments are made ‘according to the foreknowledge of God the Father’ (1 Pet. 1:2) just as I have been saying all along.. The difference being that I agree with the Bible that God does PREDESTINE just as can be seen in Romans 8:29–30. Why mormonism has decided to dismiss that p***age, even deny it is, lost to me.. So Christians believe that atonement of Jesus is effectual only from those that the Father has given. To deny that teaching is to deny His word.

Tell me that exaltation is not a limited atonement.. IHS jim

[Pa Pa]

James was telling me, on another thread, that it was okay to compare oneself to God, because we are supposed to be following him.
James as in Jim Banta? If we truly following his the is thy promise Christ made to us, but compare too (as to say we are like Christ) seems a bit much as he (Christ) is the perfect man and the image of the Father in every way...we are not; that is our potential.

[James Banta]

James as in Jim Banta? If we truly following his the is thy promise Christ made to us, but compare too (as to say we are like Christ) seems a bit much as he (Christ) is the perfect man and the image of the Father in every way...we are not; that is our potential.

In comparing ourselves to Jesus we see who and what we are.. We are not saying we are anything like Him. Only though making the comparison to the Lord can we truly see our need to be cleansed through His blood. I read the Bible all the time Papa.. I see the commandment of Jesus to be perfect as the Father is perfect. I see that only Jesus measures up to that command. Then I see that Jesus gives His righteousness to all who will believe.. Without His imputed righteousness no matter how much we repent can we be made perfect.. You are a student of the Bible you know these things.. Our potential is to become His child not his peer. IHS jim

[RealFakeHair]

In comparing ourselves to Jesus we see who and what we are.. We are not saying we are anything like Him. Only though making the comparison to the Lord can we truly see our need to be cleansed through His blood. I read the Bible all the time Papa.. I see the commandment of Jesus to be perfect as the Father is perfect. I see that only Jesus measures up to that command. Then I see that Jesus gives His righteousness to all who will believe.. Without His imputed righteousness no matter how much we repent can we be made perfect.. You are a student of the Bible you know these things.. Our potential is to become His child not his peer. IHS jim

Being, I am already perfect that scripture doesn't apply to me. However for the rest of you-all, keep working at it. Sometimes I feel like I am channeling Joseph Smith jr. spirit, does it seem that way to you-all?

[Pa Pa]

How do you know when LDS-critics are on the ropes?

You respond with bold truth (in red) and it gets wiped clean from the record.



Hardly seems like anything remotely offensive or insulting to another poster. Someone asked why Russ was posting about Steve Young speaking at a LGBT conference. And we have seen people like Russ claim that the LDS church is on its way to accepting ****sexuality as okay.

They call THAT divisive and inflammatory?! Sheeeeeesh, they might as well shut the whole forum down then if that is what goes as being divisive and inflammatory.

But interestingly enough the moderators did something I've not seen them do lately. They deleted my post and they also redacted it from Russ' quote of it (something they usually don't do so you can still see why someone's post was deleted). And so there is no record of it anywhere except my PM, not even a little icon on the thread index stating a post had been deleted. It's like they are trying to secretly delete posts that are so truthful and pointed and not leave any trace of them. LOLOLOL.......I know that is a favorite tactic of many anti-Mormons, I ***ume they think we cannot read...not to mention large bold type it like being yelled at, it shows to me a lack of confidence in getting their message across. I just try to ignore such things. When I used to use the silly to show how silly it was at CARM, I would get banned. Matt Slick and his ilk are cowardly...according to his daughter she would get whipped for not getting doctrinal questions right as a child and is now a nonbeliever. Her words in an article she wrote...in the article she talks to her mother, but not her father. I guess he was chosen and she was not, and he still loves God. I guess because his skin is saved?

[nrajeffreturns]

PaPa, where did you learn these things about Slick and his daughter? I want to check that out. Thanks.

[James Banta]

I know that is a favorite tactic of many anti-Mormons, I ***ume they think we cannot read...not to mention large bold type it like being yelled at, it shows to me a lack of confidence in getting their message across. I just try to ignore such things. When I used to use the silly to show how silly it was at CARM, I would get banned. Matt Slick and his ilk are cowardly...according to his daughter she would get whipped for not getting doctrinal questions right as a child and is now a nonbeliever. Her words in an article she wrote...in the article she talks to her mother, but not her father. I guess he was chosen and she was not, and he still loves God. I guess because his skin is saved?

Isn't it a bit cowardly to make such charge without any support and without having the person attacked be able to make a defense of the charge? It's time to post your reference on this one.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

I found this article by Rachel Slick herself, recounting her childhood as Matt's daughter:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/15/the-atheist-daughter-of-a-notable-christian-apologist-shares-her-story/

[alanmolstad]

How do you know when LDS-critics are on the ropes?

....and then Sir goes on and on, and one guy takes his turn and then another...everyone is acting all snotty...everyone being mean to everyone else personally.....and in the end, I see that people have the ***le "BANNED" under their name.


So regardless of the point they all though they were making at the time, the real lasting point that everyone made is that "Acting snotty gets you kicked out"

This was a lesson most of us learned in Kindergarten....
most of us, but not all it seems.....


Oh, and I have seen no proof at all that one religion is all that better at manners than a different religion.
But....I have seen clear proof that manners is a thing we really need to remind parents to teach their children....


One of the things lost on people is the ability it seems to be able to criticize another person's religion without attacking them personally.

I attack Mormonism all the time,
I attack the historical leadership of Mormonism all the time..
but I dont have any hard feelings against the Mormons that i might bump into on-line.......
.I try to encourage them to my point of view, but I dont call names.......

However in the anonymous way most people deal with others on-line, I find that name calling is the status-quot

[alanmolstad]

and then Sir goes on and on, and one guy takes his turn and then another...everyone is acting all snotty...everyone being mean to everyone else personally.....and in the end, I see that people have the ***le "BANNED" under their name.


So regardless of the point they all though they were making at the time, the real lasting point that everyone made is that "Acting snotty gets you kicked out"

This was a lesson most of us learned in Kindergarten....
most of us, but not all it seems.....


Oh, and I have seen no proof at all that one religion is all that better at manners than a different religion.
But....I have seen clear proof that manners is a thing we really need to remind parents to teach their children....


One of the things lost on people is the ability it seems to be able to criticize another person's religion without attacking them personally.

I attack Mormonism all the time,
I attack the historical leadership of Mormonism all the time..
but I dont have any hard feelings against the Mormons that i might bump into on-line.......
.I try to encourage them to my point of view, but I dont call names.......

However in the anonymous way most people deal with others on-line, I find that name calling is the status-quot






"BANNED".......the word appears under a lot of guest names on this topic.

It should give other people pause before they act like in a similar manner....

[Apologette]

"BANNED".......the word appears under a lot of guest names on this topic.

It should give other people pause before they act like in a similar manner....

Sure it does - but these Mormons have no scruples about violating Christian board rules. I'm sure you understand that. This guy "Sir," came back here posting under the name "Walter Martin." He posted "screen shots" of messages between myself and Brian from CARM. How's that for violating rule? I've reported him to Diane. He posts on CARM as Apollos. He has taken personal information from Facebook (about me) and posted it on CARM, including my geographical location (although, I'd doubt anybody would get past the guard dogs) and which church I attend (let him come, he might learn something). Sir or Apollos is the true representation of what we can expect from Mormons. Rules have no use - except to be violated. Such rule violators need to be eschewed - they testify to the evil of Mormonism.

[Apologette]

I found this article by Rachel Slick herself, recounting her childhood as Matt's daughter:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/15/the-atheist-daughter-of-a-notable-christian-apologist-shares-her-story/

So tell us Jeff (now banned from CARM), do Mormon kids wise up and leave the cult of Mormonism? Matt Slick's kid left Christ, and it appears to me the child was never regenerated. She went along for the ride because she was expected to do so. Study a little psychology and you'll find out that kids who are kept in a strict environment and not allowed to explore their own feelings, will often act out when they get older, rejecting their own parents values and beliefs. So, does it make you feel superior that Slick's daugher did that? How about your own kids? Are they all towing the cult's line? The day may come that they don't, and maybe you'll see others here talking about you.

[theway]

So tell us Jeff (now banned from CARM), do Mormon kids wise up and leave the cult of Mormonism? Matt Slick's kid left Christ, and it appears to me the child was never regenerated. She went along for the ride because she was expected to do so. Study a little psychology and you'll find out that kids who are kept in a strict environment and not allowed to explore their own feelings, will often act out when they get older, rejecting their own parents values and beliefs. So, does it make you feel superior that Slick's daugher did that? How about your own kids? Are they all towing the cult's line? The day may come that they don't, and maybe you'll see others here talking about you.I see.... So now you are giving advice to Matt Slick for his bad parenting???
You are claiming that it is your belief that Matt should have employed man-made science, and then let her follow her feelings???
Call me crazy, but isn't that why you claim the Mormons are wrong?

Got to love you CA, you're very funny in your hypocrisy.

[Apologette]

I see.... So now you are giving advice to Matt Slick for his bad parenting???
You are claiming that it is your belief is that Matt should have employed man-made science, and then let her follow her feelings???
Call me crazy, but isn't that why you claim the Mormons are wrong?

Got to love you CA, you're very funny in your hypocrisy.

Nope, but psychology is one of my fields of expertise. Another might be pointing out that a person like you, who has used multiple posting names, has no right to condemn anybody for hypocrisy.

[theway]

Nope, but psychology is one of my fields of expertise. Another might be pointing out that a person like you, who has used multiple posting names, has no right to condemn anybody for hypocrisy.See what I mean... You never learn.
No matter how many times I have told you to correct yourself, you simply refuse to do so...
I HAVE NEVER POSTED UNDER MULTIPLE POSTING NAMES, EVER!
Now that I have told you the truth for about the tenth time; if you accuse me of it again, then it's a willful lie on your part.

[Apologette]

See what I mean... You never learn.
No matter how many times I have told you to correct yourself, you simply refuse to do so...
I HAVE NEVER POSTED UNDER MULTIPLE POSTING NAMES, EVER!
Now that I have told you the truth for about the tenth time; if you accuse me of it again, then it's a willful lie on your part.

Okay, so why are you banned from CARM? What exactly did you do? They generally only ban posters for very long periods when they use multiple posting names. Why were you banned? If it was unjust, I'll ask CARM to allow you to post again.

[theway]

Okay, so why are you banned from CARM? What exactly did you do? They generally only ban posters for very long periods when they use multiple posting names. Why were you banned? If it was unjust, I'll ask CARM to allow you to post again.
Oh please CA... let's not pretend, shall we.

Oh I don't care if I get banned... It's a Medal of Honor. If you are not banned every so often, then you are not being effective confronting their attacks.
Over at CARM I was banned about 30 times and warned maybe 170 times... Almost all of the bans were for "Interfering with the ministry". This means that they believe you are starting to convince people that you are correct, or you are making AntiMormons question their beliefs. In fact, just recently Matt Slick banned all Universalists because he said they were drawing people to them.
The other reason for being banned is "Mocking another Poster". Mind you, they never use this excuse against an AntiMormon; however this excuse when used against a Mormon means that you have embarr***ed an AntiMormon. For example one time an AntiMormon claimed that something was not in the Bible to someone who was thinking about leaving the Church; all I did was post a scripture without comment that proved him wrong... They banned me for mocking him.
Another time an AntiMormon made a comment... I pointed out that he was either lying or plagiarizing. He then reported me to the Mods for calling him a lier. The Mods told me I could not call someone a lier without proof. I posted time stamped proof, to which HE ADMITTED to plagiarizing what he posted. I was then banned for mocking and my post with the proof was deleted... His posts were not deleted, and while I was banned he started backtracking on what he admitted to.
I also find it funny that you would want me posting over there again since you were the one who campaigned to get me banned in the first place. Every time I would answer one of your posts, I would get a warning about it from the Mods a few minutes later. I never got warnings when I answered other Posters, just you. This is how I know it was you.
You should remember why I was banned anyway.

YOU ASKED ME, what laws were being violated by someone posting a pirated temple video on the Internet.
I then told you the exact laws, along with their precedence setting Supreme Court cases.
You then wrongfully accused me of planning to sue CARM.
I then replied that I was not planning on suing anybody because I could really care less about it, but since you asked for proof that it violated laws, I gave it to you.
1 minute after my post to you, they banned me for planning on suing them.... Ghee CA, I wonder who told them that lie???

[Apologette]

Oh please CA... let's not pretend, shall we.

I also find it funny that you would want me posting over there again since you were the one who campaigned to get me banned in the first place. Every time I would answer one of your posts, I would get a warning about it from the Mods a few minutes later. I never got warnings when I answered other Posters, just you. This is how I know it was you.
You should remember why I was banned anyway.

YOU ASKED ME, what laws were being violated by someone posting a pirated temple video on the Internet.
I then told you the exact laws, along with their precedence setting Supreme Court cases.
You then wrongfully accused me of planning to sue CARM.
I then replied that I was not planning on suing anybody because I could really care less about it, but since you asked for proof that it violated laws, I gave it to you.
1 minute after my post to you, they banned me for planning on suing them.... Ghee CA, I wonder who told them that lie???

Did you make threatening statements to sue CARM for posting Newnamenoah videos? That's a big no no if you did. I don't recall the incident clearly, but if I saw you making that kind of post, I would have reported it. But I didn't find you as offensive as some of your other Lodge brothers posting there. Why were you afraid, anyway, of people having the option of seeing what kind of warmed over and rather juvenile "rites" go on in your "temples?" But I tell you what, you go ahead and send Diane an email promising that you'll never make any threats against CARM in that regard again and I'll back you up....if you mean it. After all, they allowed Richard back who posted under a bunch of false names and tried to bring the site down, and I'd rather deal with you than him any day because you are far more knowledgeable than Richard/Ralf/etc. I also, by the way, went to bat for NRAJeff when Russ posted what he thought was Jeff's true name on CARM, which I thought was an unchristian and unfair thing to do. I reported Russ in that instant. Russ was dead wrong. Now as far as Jeff goes, I have no animosity toward him and believe he's doing what he thinks is right in regard to defending Mormonism. Both of you are sadly deceived, however I'm not going to support a Christian over a Mormon who has been treated poorly and unjustly. So, go ahead and email Diane and then you can send me a private message telling me you've done so. How's that?

Furthermore, if you never used multiple posting names on CARM, then I apologize for insinuating you did. I had been told that by someone who should have known on CARM, but was apparently confusing you with someone else. You see, I won't ask you to do what I won't do myself.

[theway]

Did you make threatening statements to sue CARM for posting Newnamenoah videos? That's a big no no if you did. I don't recall the incident clearly, but if I saw you making that kind of post, I would have reported it. You may claim you don't remember it, but I remember it clearly. You asked for legal evidence... I gave it to you, exactly like I had done before on that site without any problems... You then posted that I could get banned for threatening to sue CARM. I replied to you that it was lucky then, that I didn't threaten to sue CARM, and that I was only responding to a call for evidence that it was illegal to post a pirated copyrighted video online or to even link to it. One minute later I was banned for threatening to sue CARM.

But I didn't find you as offensive as some of your other Lodge brothers posting there. Now there's no reason for you to be insulting... You are in effect saying that you think I am not a threat to you and your Anti-Mormon work, therefore you would have no problem with me. I know from the past, that anyone you believe to be effective against Anti-Mormon claims, you are able to get banned within a day by rallying your troups behind the scenes... Remember Daniel? Just for fun, I would make it a game to count the hours it took for you to silence him or others you find a threat.

Why were you afraid, anyway, of people having the option of seeing what kind of warmed over and rather juvenile "rites" go on in your "temples?" Once again, in case you have forgotten, I told you that I could care less, I was more intrigued by the professed morality of those who believed the "ends justified the means" knowing full well that the means were illegal. Do you really think God would be OK with it?

But I tell you what, you go ahead and send Diane an email promising that you'll never make any threats against CARM in that regard again and I'll back you up....if you mean it. No... That would be admitting to something that I didn't do. Besides, let's not fool ourselves. I wasn't banned for planning on suing CARM, I was banned for *****ing their conscience and embarr***ing them.

Both of you are sadly deceived, however I'm not going to support a Christian over a Mormon who has been treated poorly and unjustly. So, go ahead and email Diane and then you can send me a private message telling me you've done so. How's that?But your action on this very thread say otherwise. Your words continue to support NEWNAMENOAH and his "Lying for the Lord" simply because he is AntiMormon even though his filming of the video was unjust.


Furthermore, if you never used multiple posting names on CARM, then I apologize for insinuating you did. I had been told that by someone who should have known on CARM, but was apparently confusing you with someone else. You see, I won't ask you to do what I won't do myself.Once again, this exactly demonstrates that you are not truthful in your statement, and illustrates how most AntiMormons operate.
I am alive and well, and gave you first hand evidence, yet you choose to believe rumors without any evidence because it was what you wanted to believe. In your mind whether it was true or not was irrelevant.

[Apologette]

You may claim you don't remember it, but I remember it clearly. You asked for legal evidence... I gave it to you, exactly like I had done before on that site without any problems... You then posted that I could get banned for threatening to sue CARM. I replied to you that it was lucky then, that I didn't threaten to sue CARM, and that I was only responding to a call for evidence that it was illegal to post a pirated copyrighted video online or to even link to it. One minute later I was banned for threatening to sue CARM.
Now there's no reason for you to be insulting... You are in effect saying that you think I am not a threat to you and your Anti-Mormon work, therefore you would have no problem with me. I know from the past, that anyone you believe to be effective against Anti-Mormon claims, you are able to get banned within a day by rallying your troups behind the scenes... Remember Daniel? Just for fun, I would make it a game to count the hours it took for you to silence him or others you find a threat.
Once again, in case you have forgotten, I told you that I could care less, I was more intrigued by the professed morality of those who believed the "ends justified the means" knowing full well that the means were illegal. Do you really think God would be OK with it?
No... That would be admitting to something that I didn't do. Besides, let's not fool ourselves. I wasn't banned for planning on suing CARM, I was banned for *****ing their conscience and embarr***ing them.
But your action on this very thread say otherwise. Your words continue to support NEWNAMENOAH and his "Lying for the Lord" simply because he is AntiMormon even though his filming of the video was unjust.

Once again, this exactly demonstrates that you are not truthful in your statement, and illustrates how most AntiMormons operate.
I am alive and well, and gave you first hand evidence, yet you choose to believe rumors without any evidence because it was what you wanted to believe. In your mind whether it was true or not was irrelevant.

[B]Well, blah, blah, blah..........so you don't want to apologize to Diane? So be it. The offer stands if you want to go back.........but you have to be sorry for even bringing that subject up on CARM. Other Mormons have done the same, and it's a dirty trick, quite frankly. An intimidation tactic. And yes, I totally support Newnamenoah in his quest to expose the revised Masonic rites you Mormons ripped off of the Lodge. The rites are childish and juvenile - women dressing up in veils, getting new names so their hubbies can resurrect them. Just plain child's play. People thinking about Momrnism or in it have a right to know about what goes on in the Mormon non-temples (because they have nothing to do with real temples). They have to know because they (converts) pay their ten percent weekly or monthly to the LDS for the privilege of getting into the secret temple. You people lure people into Mormonism without full disclosure. What are you guys afraid of? That when they learn what goes on in your secret temples they'll flee the other way!

Anybody thinking about joining Mormonism needs to watch the "secret" Mormon cult's temple ceremony on Youtube, put up by Newnamenoah, called "Behind the Veil."

As far as you're concerned, if you had been serious about wanting to go back to CARM you would man up and apologize. YOU were wrong in trying to intimidate anybody with your supposed legal knowledge. If the cult wants to do something about it, they'd go after Newnamenoah, but they haven't. You don't have any skin in the game because you aren't an "authority."

[theway]

Well, blah, blah, blah..........so you don't want to apologize to Diane? So be it. The offer stands if you want to go back.........I would have no problem apologizing, if I had done something wrong, but saying you're sorry when you don't really mean it because you know you did nothing wrong, is the same as lying.

but you have to be sorry for even bringing that subject up on CARM. No, not at all. I've have never made it a secret that I am only here for the entertainment value. There are hundreds of these Anti Mormon Forums to choose from, and I have already outlasted two of them... Walter Martin will make three. I will be around a lot longer than CARM will also.
Other Mormons have done the same, and it's a dirty trick, quite frankly. An intimidation tactic. Its only an intimidation tactic when someone knows they are in the wrong. Ask yourself why they would try to silence me, if they had nothing to fear, and I broke no rules. The hypocrasy of this whole thing is that if you go over to newnamenoah's utube videos, his first posts are threatening to sue anyone who even dares to hint that he broke copyright laws. I however, have no problem declaring it everywhere because I am not intimidated by him, I am in the right.
And yes, I totally support Newnamenoah in his quest to expose the revised Masonic rites you Mormons ripped off of the Lodge.Have I said otherwise? I have constantly pointed out that you believe that "Lying for the Lord" is OK by you as long as the ends justify the means. I think differently than you... But that's just me.


As far as you're concerned, if you had been serious about wanting to go back to CARM you would man up and apologize. I never mentioned that I wanted to go back to CARM... YOU INVITED ME TO COME BACK!
I got a chuckle out of it even, because I remember telling you that if I was banned that it would get really boring over there. You need me, I do not need you!

If the cult wants to do something about it, they'd go after Newnamenoah, but they haven't. You don't have any skin in the game because you aren't an "authority."Yes, this is just another example of AntiMormon morality.... If nobody does anything about it, it wasn't a crime. In other words, if a woman got raped, no crime happened if she didn't report it.

Like I said, I just tend to think a little differently than you do about what is right and what is wrong.
Which, incidentally is the topic of my Sunday School lesson this Sunday... How to tell the difference between right and wrong in today's world. You may want to sit in and take some notes.

[Apologette]

I would have no problem apologizing, if I had done something wrong, but saying you're sorry when you don't really mean it because you know you did nothing wrong, is the same as lying.No, not at all. I've have never made it a secret that I am only here for the entertainment value. There are hundreds of these Anti Mormon Forums to choose from, and I have already outlasted two of them... Walter Martin will make three. I will be around a lot longer than CARM will also.Its only an intimidation tactic when someone knows they are in the wrong. Ask yourself why they would try to silence me, if they had nothing to fear, and I broke no rules. The hypocrasy of this whole thing is that if you go over to newnamenoah's utube videos, his first posts are threatening to sue anyone who even dares to hint that he broke copyright laws. I however, have no problem declaring it everywhere because I am not intimidated by him, I am in the right.Have I said otherwise? I have constantly pointed out that you believe that "Lying for the Lord" is OK by you as long as the ends justify the means. I think differently than you... But that's just me.
I never mentioned that I wanted to go back to CARM... YOU INVITED ME TO COME BACK!
I got a chuckle out of it even, because I remember telling you that if I was banned that it would get really boring over there. You need me, I do not need you!
Yes, this is just another example of AntiMormon morality.... If nobody does anything about it, it wasn't a crime. In other words, if a woman got raped, no crime happened if she didn't report it.

Like I said, I just tend to think a little differently than you do about what is right and what is wrong.
Which, incidentally is the topic of my Sunday School lesson this Sunday... How to tell the difference between right and wrong in today's world. You may want to sit in and take some notes.

One thing that is wrong is following a pedophile like Joe Smith. Bring it up Sunday. As far as you're concerned, you are a guest on these forums. You don't control what is posted. If you want to control people, go buy you own website.

[theway]

One thing that is wrong is following a pedophile like Joe Smith.Lol... Funny irony. According to you, there was no pedophilia because not one person who was involved did anything about it; therefore, nothing wrong happened. RIGHT?
Also, didn't you just say that I had no authority to speak out against, or try to defend the LDS Church against, the pirated temple video because I was not directly involved; what then gives you the authority to speak out about something that happened long before you were even born?

As far as you're concerned, you are a guest on thuese forums. You don't control what is posted. If you want to control people, go buy you own website.You are right, I only have control over what I post. Funny thing is that you are the one trying to control what I post.
It appears like you have come to realize that when you ban someone, you no longer have any control at all over what they post elsewhere. That is why you want me to go back to CARM, ironically, so that you can try and silence me and maintain some level of control over me.

[Phoenix]

Funny irony. According to you, there was no pedophilia because not one person who was involved did anything about it; therefore, nothing wrong happened. RIGHT?
That does seem to be a good point.