Sandra Tanner Interview: "I came to Jesus through the Bible...and the Book of Mormon"

[Libby]

Last night I was listening to John Dehlin interviewing Sandra Tanner on his Mormon Stories Podcasts.

http://mormonstories.org/sandra-and-jerald-tanner-the-early-years/

I already knew quite a bit about Sandra Tanner, but I had never heard her testimony of how she converted to Christianity. This was interesting to me, because she said, she and Jerald (her husband, now deceased) were still reading and believed in the Book of Mormon (as well as the Bible), AFTER they were converted. The Book of Mormon teaches "One God", and is fairly well in sync with the Bible on most things. So, they (Sandra & Jerald) still believed it was true, for a couple of years after their conversion to Christianity. When John asked Sandra how she came to know Jesus, she said, "well, through the Bible and the Book of Mormon". John laughed about the Book of Mormon part and said, "that was Grant Palmer's argument - the book doesn't have to be "true" to bring you to Jesus."

Just thought that was interesting, and wanted to throw it out for discussion and also thought others might enjoy listening to this interview.

The conversion discussion starts at approximately 48 min.

[Billyray]

Last night I was listening to John Dehlin interviewing Sandra Tanner on his Mormon Stories Podcasts.

http://mormonstories.org/sandra-and-jerald-tanner-the-early-years/

I already knew quite a bit about Sandra Tanner, but I had never heard her testimony of how she converted to Christianity. This was interesting to me, because she said, she and Jerald (her husband, now deceased) were still reading and believed in the Book of Mormon (as well as the Bible), AFTER they were converted. The Book of Mormon teaches "One God", and is fairly well in sync with the Bible on most things. So, they (Sandra & Jerald) still believed it was true, for a couple of years after their conversion to Christianity. When John asked Sandra how she came to know Jesus, she said, "well, through the Bible and the Book of Mormon". John laughed and said, "that was Grant Palmer's argument - the book doesn't have to be "true" to bring you to Jesus."

Just thought that was interesting, and wanted to throw it out for discussion and also thought others might enjoy listening to this interview.

The conversion discussion starts at approximately 48 min.
The key phrase that Sandra said in your quote above--"The Book of Mormon teaches "One God", and is fairly well in sync with the Bible on most things."

Joseph's theology evolved during his lifetime. Since the Book of Mormon was the first book in a series of books that Joseph wrote it is the most consistent with what the Bible teaches--including one God--not many gods that mormons believe today. This was similar to my story and I am sure many lds who converted to Christianity in that just after their conversion they still carried with them some of the old baggage--but over time as the Christian matures these false beliefs start to drop off one by one.

[Libby]

Yes, JS's theology did evolve.

I was converted to Mormonism through the Book of Mormon. I didn't really learn about most of the other stuff until after I joined the church.

It bothered me for along time that I still "felt" something for the Book of Mormon. I had, what I thought, was a "real" spiritual experience with it. Sandra's story kind of helped me understand all of that a little better.

[Phoenix]

When John asked Sandra how she came to know Jesus, she said, "well, through the Bible and the Book of Mormon". John laughed about the Book of Mormon part and said, "that was Grant Palmer's argument - the book doesn't have to be "true" to bring you to Jesus."


Yes, that is interesting. If John and Sandra are correct, then I don't see how the Book of Mormon can be of satanic origin as certain anti-bom people claim.

[Billyray]

Yes, that is interesting. If John and Sandra are correct, then I don't see how the Book of Mormon can be of satanic origin as certain anti-bom people claim.
The Book of Mormon is the hook that draws them in and then they are given the real doctrine that is found in other books/manuals. Once fully indoctrinated they then get even deeper doctrine--including masonic type rituals--in the temple

[alanmolstad]

Yes, that is interesting. If John and Sandra are correct, then I don't see how the Book of Mormon can be of satanic origin as certain anti-bom people claim.
The bible says that God can work "all things" for good to us who love him.

Thus the fact that in the Bible we see Paul refer to a pagan "unknown god", yet this is not to be understood as an "endorsement" of a pagan god.....

just as a person finding interesting things in other books such as Shakespeare, or the Book of Mormon, or even Dr Seuss, is to be seen as an endorsement by God of such works.

[Phoenix]

The bible says that God can work "all things" for good to us who love him.
So God CAN, and DOES, use the Book of Mormon to bring people to a salvational knowledge of God and Christ, to the point that they are saved by their faith in Christ through the BOM, by the Christ of the BOM?


Thus the fact that in the Bible we see Paul refer to a pagan "unknown god", yet this is not to be understood as an "endorsement" of a pagan god.....
But does Paul say, as Dehlin and Tanner did, that you can to know Jesus, "through the Bible and the pagan unknown god" ?

So that it echoes what Grant Palmer would say - the pagan god doesn't have to be "true" to bring you to Jesus?


just as a person finding Jesus in other books such as [B]Shakespeare, or the Book of Mormon, or even Dr Seuss, is to be seen as an endorsement by God of such works.
Is the Jesus mentioned in Shakespeare's plays, and in Dr. Seuss books, referred to by their authors as being the Jesus who is the Son of God and Savior of people's souls?

[alanmolstad]

So God CAN, and DOES, use the Book of Mormon to bring people to a salvational knowledge of God and Christ, to the point that they are saved by their faith in Christ through the BOM, by the Christ of the BOM?


Mormon finds salvation?,"could it happen"?.......anything is possible.

Even if the Book Of Mormon is a complete lie and from the pit of Hell?........yes anything is possible.


Even if Joe Smith was pulling things out of his behind and was only in this for the money and the chance to chase young skirts?......Yes, The answer is that even in the middle of the Jewish Holocaust we still find stories of people turning to the Lord.


What is the reason?....I mean if the whole of the Mormon faith is built completely on a lie, and that Smith was a true pedophile, how could today this false-religion be used by the Lord to help people find Him?




The answer is that the bible tells us that God can use all things for our good, if it is accordance with his will.....
So yes, in-spite of the many evils that come with the Mormon faith, you should never think that just because the Mormons worship a false god inside their temple, that this means the the true God of our Bible is banned from being there too.....


And so, this is why many times on the Bible Answer man show we heard Dr Walter Martin talk about how he knew many ex-Mormons who came out of the CULT, not by being witnessed to, not by hearing a voice or seeing a vision, but rather just by being open to the truth regardless of where they saw that truth was leading them too......



Thus when I talk today with a Mormon I pray for them, knowing that while at the current time they may be far from salvation, yet I know God is not hiding from them....
But God is seeking them,,,drawing them...attracting them to himself....

The older i get the more I see nothing happens in my life by accident....I have seen too many who I once consider a "lost cause" suddenly out of the blue respond to the Christian message and give their heart to christ.

[Billyray]

So God CAN, and DOES, use the Book of Mormon to bring people to a salvational knowledge of God and Christ, to the point that they are saved by their faith in Christ through the BOM, by the Christ of the BOM?
Alma 11
38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?
39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;


Do you believe that Jesus "is the very eternal Father of heaven and earth"?

[Billyray]

So God CAN, and DOES, use the Book of Mormon to bring people to a salvational knowledge of God and Christ, to the point that they are saved by their faith in Christ through the BOM, by the Christ of the BOM?
Mormonism teaches strange gods however it is certainly possible--despite the false lds teachings--that a person can find the true God and Christ of the Bible for the simple fact that lds have retained the Bible as one of their standard works. The mormon gods are different that the God of the Bible so someone who is lds--despite their mormon indoctrination--still may find the true God BECAUSE the true God is taught in the Bible.

[alanmolstad]

Is the Jesus mentioned in Shakespeare's plays, and in Dr. Seuss books, referred to by their authors as being the Jesus who is the Son of God and Savior of people's souls?

Im saying.......this>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O83e7nagEw

[Libby]

I watched that Katie Couric interview with Akiana, advertised on that YouTube, you posted, Alan. Showed some of her amazing work.

[Libby]

Mormon finds salvation?,"could it happen"?.......anything is possible.

Even if the Book Of Mormon is a complete lie and from the pit of Hell?........yes anything is possible.


Even if Joe Smith was pulling things out of his behind and was only in this for the money and the chance to chase young skirts?......Yes, The answer is that even in the middle of the Jewish Holocaust we still find stories of people turning to the Lord.


What is the reason?....I mean if the whole of the Mormon faith is built completely on a lie, and that Smith was a true pedophile, how could today this false-religion be used by the Lord to help people find Him?




The answer is that the bible tells us that God can use all things for our good, if it is accordance with his will.....
So yes, in-spite of the many evils that come with the Mormon faith, you should never think that just because the Mormons worship a false god inside their temple, that this means the the true God of our Bible is banned from being there too.....


And so, this is why many times on the Bible Answer man show we heard Dr Walter Martin talk about how he knew many ex-Mormons who came out of the CULT, not by being witnessed to, not by hearing a voice or seeing a vision, but rather just by being open to the truth regardless of where they saw that truth was leading them too......



Thus when I talk today with a Mormon I pray for them, knowing that while at the current time they may be far from salvation, yet I know God is not hiding from them....
But God is seeking them,,,drawing them...attracting them to himself....

The older i get the more I see nothing happens in my life by accident....I have seen too many who I once consider a "lost cause" suddenly out of the blue respond to the Christian message and give their heart to christ.

So true.....

[Phoenix]

Alma 11
38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?
39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;


Do you believe that Jesus "is the very eternal Father of heaven and earth"?
Yes, in the OT sense of the term. See Isaiah for details. Or read the lyrics in Handel's Messiah. :)

[alanmolstad]

But does Paul say, as Dehlin and Tanner did, that you can to know Jesus, "through the Bible and the pagan unknown god" ?

So that it echoes what Grant Palmer would say - the pagan god doesn't have to be "true" to bring you to Jesus?


I would have to see the context of each statement made...

What we know for sure is that the Mormon god is false and just something dreamed up by Smith to help him get cash and skirts.
But be that as it may, the Lord still is able to work all things for our good if it's in His will to do so.

Thus if a person's heart is open to the truth then regardless of what junk the person might be reading they may yet read stumble onto something that in their mind opens a door.

[alanmolstad]

Is the Jesus mentioned in Shakespeare's plays, and in Dr. Seuss books, referred to by their authors as being the Jesus who is the Son of God and Savior of people's souls?
There might be lessons to be learned that a person can find value in Im sure.....

Perhaps not the same lesson the writer intended, but yet something that might well be something the God is showing you about Himself and the world we live in.


Take the sentence found in a simple Dr. Seuss book "A persons a person, no matter how small"


There are ways to look at that sentence and draw out a meaning that has little to do with an elephant hearing a noise from some dust.

[Phoenix]

I would have to see the context of each statement made...
We know the context. See post number one.


What we know for sure is that the Mormon god is false and just something dreamed up by Smith to help him get cash and skirts.
I am guessing that by "we" you don't include me, because I know no such thing. I don't even believe such a thing.


But be that as it may, the Lord still is able to work all things for our good if it's in His will to do so.
Sandra Tanner implied that it is a reality that people get converted to the real Jesus Christ through the Book of Mormon's testimony to His divinity and reality.


Thus if a person's heart is open to the truth then regardless of what junk the person might be reading they may yet read stumble onto something that in their mind opens a door.
I think I can agree with that: Sandra's heart was open to the truth about Christ, and she found that truth in the pages of the Book of Mormon. That seems to be her point, which John Dehlin seems to confirm.

[Billyray]

Alma 11
38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?
39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;


Do you believe that Jesus "is the very eternal Father of heaven and earth"?

Yes, in the OT sense of the term. See Isaiah for details. Or read the lyrics in Handel's Messiah. :)
I am not sure what you mean exactly could you elaborate. Is the Son of God the VERY Eternal Father? Or not?

[Phoenix]

I am not sure what you mean exactly could you elaborate. Is the Son of God the VERY Eternal Father? Or not?

In OT theology as taught in the OT, a baby would be born to a virgin, and that baby would be the Son of God, and His name would be CALLED, among other things, the everlasting Father.

In NT theology, Jesus is that same person who the OT scriptures predicted would be born to a virgin and be called the Son of God, Messiah, everlasting Father, Prince of Peace etc.

And in the NT, that person said that His Father in Heaven is our God and His God, and our Father and His Father.

Since we don't live in OT times, we should probably adopt the NT teachings about God and His Son.

[Billyray]

In OT theology as taught in the OT, a baby would be born to a virgin, and that baby would be the Son of God, and His name would be CALLED, among other things, the everlasting Father.

In NT theology, Jesus is that same person who the OT scriptures predicted would be born to a virgin and be called the Son of God, Messiah, everlasting Father, Prince of Peace etc.

And in the NT, that person said that His Father in Heaven is our God and His God, and our Father and His Father.

Since we don't live in OT times, we should probably adopt the NT teachings about God and His Son.
"38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?"

But it asks if the Son of God is THE very Eternal Father. So is it true according to the Book of Mormon that the Son of God is THE VERY ETERNAL FATHER?

[Billyray]

And in the NT, that person said that His Father in Heaven is our God and His God, and our Father and His Father. .
Who was the God of the OT people?

[The Pheonix]

Last night I was listening to John Dehlin interviewing Sandra Tanner on his Mormon Stories Podcasts.

http://mormonstories.org/sandra-and-jerald-tanner-the-early-years/

I already knew quite a bit about Sandra Tanner, but I had never heard her testimony of how she converted to Christianity. This was interesting to me, because she said, she and Jerald (her husband, now deceased) were still reading and believed in the Book of Mormon (as well as the Bible), AFTER they were converted. The Book of Mormon teaches "One God", and is fairly well in sync with the Bible on most things. So, they (Sandra & Jerald) still believed it was true, for a couple of years after their conversion to Christianity. When John asked Sandra how she came to know Jesus, she said, "well, through the Bible and the Book of Mormon". John laughed about the Book of Mormon part and said, "that was Grant Palmer's argument - the book doesn't have to be "true" to bring you to Jesus."

Just thought that was interesting, and wanted to throw it out for discussion and also thought others might enjoy listening to this interview.

The conversion discussion starts at approximately 48 min.She is right the BoM teaches the perfect definition of who and what God is...the bad idea is when no-mos mock teaching in the BoM they (we...me..LDS) believe.

[Billyray]

She is right the BoM teaches the perfect definition of who and what God is...the bad idea is when no-mos mock teaching I the BoM they believe.
"38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?"

But it asks if the Son of God is THE very Eternal Father. So is it true according to the Book of Mormon that the Son of God is THE VERY ETERNAL FATHER?

[The Pheonix]

Who was the God of the OT people?JEHOVAH...Jesus Christ. Why do you ask, we were not discussing it? You guy could divert the Colorado River, instead of generating power. Which is it's intended purpose.

[The Pheonix]

"38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?"

But it asks if the Son of God is THE very Eternal Father. So is it true according to the Book of Mormon that the Son of God is THE VERY ETERNAL FATHER?Billy...why read and learn the entire book. When you quote out of context and with no understand of all it teaches, you do yourself no service. Take a look at Mosiah 5: 7, as well as all the book of John, and John 17 for your central focus.

[Libby]

She is right the BoM teaches the perfect definition of who and what God is...the bad idea is when no-mos mock teaching in the BoM they (we...me..LDS) believe.

A lot of critics have never read the Book of Mormon. They only know (believe) that Joseph Smith (or someone) made it up.

As Sandra pointed out, the book was written in the early stages of Joseph's quest and it sounds very 19th Century protestant. That, and the long p***ages of Isaiah, make for a very "biblical sounding" book.

[Billyray]

JEHOVAH...Jesus Christ.
So the people of the OT had a completely different God that they worshipped than those under the NT?

[Billyray]

Billy...why read and learn the entire book.

I have read the Book of Mormon multiple times and I taught investigators about the Book of Mormon while on my mission.



When you quote out of context and with no understand of all it teaches, you do yourself no service. Take a look at Mosiah 5: 7, as well as all the book of John, and John 17 for your central focus.
"38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?"

Mormonism teaches many gods. So in verse 38 Zeezrom asks if the Son of God is THE very Eternal Father. So is it true according to the Book of Mormon that the Son of God is THE VERY ETERNAL FATHER?

[Billyray]

She is right the BoM teaches the perfect definition of who and what God is...the bad idea is when no-mos mock teaching in the BoM they (we...me..LDS) believe.
Moroni 8:18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.

Do you believe this verse which says that God "is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity."?

[Billyray]

She is right the BoM teaches the perfect definition of who and what God is...the bad idea is when no-mos mock teaching in the BoM they (we...me..LDS) believe.
2 Nephi 11:7 For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time.

"For if there be no Christ there be no God"

Do you believe that if Christ did not exist then there would be NO God?

[Phoenix]

"38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?"

But it asks if the Son of God is THE very Eternal Father. So is it true according to the Book of Mormon that the Son of God is THE VERY ETERNAL FATHER?

Yes, it is true in a way. After all, scripture says that disciples of Christ who give their lives to Him, become His children by adoption. And since Jesus created the earth and the "heavens" and all "things" in them, He could be called the father of heaven and earth, in a way.

But that doesn't mean that Christ doesn't have a Father who is greater, who creates spirits, and who is in charge of the universe. Some of the creating that God does, He does through Christ. Christ, as the Father's Son, is destined to inherit all that His Father has.

[Billyray]

Billy...why read and learn the entire book. When you quote out of context and with no understand of all it teaches, you do yourself no service.
Thanks for the encouragement--I just broke out my lds scriptures that I used on my mission which includes written notes along along with blue and red colored highlights. But since becoming a Christian I have written copious notes, yellow highlights, and included tabs linked to specific subjects. Here is a sample which includes old and new notes that I have taken. You can tell the old written notes as distinguished from the new notes because my handwriting was a bit better when I was younger.

214

I have made lots of notes and thus have lots to discuss about the Book of Mormon.

[Billyray]

Yes, it is true in a way. After all, scripture says that disciples of Christ who give their lives to Him, become His children by adoption. And since Jesus created the earth and the "heavens" and all "things" in them, He could be called the father of heaven and earth, in a way.


So your Father in Heaven is Jesus?

[Libby]

Thanks for the encouragement--I just broke out my lds scriptures that I used on my mission which includes written notes along along with blue and red colored highlights. But since becoming a Christian I have written copious notes, yellow highlights, and included tabs linked to specific subjects. Here is a sample which includes old and new notes that I have taken. You can tell the old written notes as distinguished from the new notes because my handwriting was a bit better when I was younger.

214

I have made lots of notes and thus have lots to discuss about the Book of Mormon.

Wow, nice. Is that an old triple...or a quad?

[Billyray]

Wow, nice. Is that an old triple...or a quad?
The old triple combination. It is interesting seeing the notes that I made way back when and the beliefs that I truly believed at the time.

[Libby]

The old triple combination. It is interesting seeing the notes that I made way back when and the beliefs that I truly believed at the time.

Yes, it is. Interesting, too, how you have color coded them. Where did you serve your mission, Billy?

I have a quad that I bought right after I joined the church, in 2001. I just got it out...I really haven't read in it for about five years. My original "study" Book of Mormon was the blue give away that I got from the missionaries.. I have tons of highlighting in that one. Quite a bit in my "quad", as well.

[Billyray]

Yes, it is. Interesting, too, how you have color coded them. Where did you serve your mission, Billy?

I have a quad that I bought right after I joined the church, in 2001. I just got it out...I really haven't read in it for about five years. My original "study" Book of Mormon was the blue give away that I got from the missionaries.. I have tons of highlighting in that one. Quite a bit in my "quad", as well.
I served in England in the 1980's--

BTW I think you brought it up in this thread that Joseph's belief about God evolved over time. This is absolutely true. The lds of God today--which was Joseph's later view of God--is not the same as taught in the Book of Mormon. Grant Palmer has a YouTube video about this which can be seen at the following link

Grant Palmer - Joseph Smith's Changing View of God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCp4gWI_tWo&index=3&list=FLpxpVZTqYBmc0c0UUlyzIaA

[Libby]

England, wow, lucky you. :) I have an LDS cousin who served his mission in England, as well, probably at, approximately, the same time. He is about ten or twelve years younger than me. Still a very active Mormon..with seven children. He moved to Utah to be at the center of things.

Thanks for the link. I'll have a look. I have heard and read about Joseph's changing theology, in several different places. I'm also familiar with Grant Palmer.

[Libby]

I just noticed that there is a Phoenix and The Pheonix on the board. I thought you two were one in the same. Yikes. Sorry! Just now noticed that.

[Billyray]

Thanks for the link. I'll have a look. I have heard and read about Joseph's changing theology, in several different places. I'm also familiar with Grant Palmer.
I have watched just part of it so far. It is fairly long so I will probable watch it in different sittings. I studied this subject several years back and as I recall the best fit for the god of the Book of Mormon is modalism. But it has been a while since I looked this over so I will watch what Grant has to say to refresh my memory a bit on this subject and see if he comes to the same conclusion.


Modalism
In Christianity, Sabellianism (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one monadic God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism

[Libby]

Oh wow, this is interesting! He is talking about three of the versions of the First Vision that came across the plains with the Saints..and what Joseph Fielding Smith did to one of those versions. I have never heard this before. Very interesting!

Yes, it's long! I will probably watch in segments, as well.

[Libby]

Modalism
In Christianity, Sabellianism (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one monadic God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism

Yes, I know about modalism. One God with three personalities (rather than actual persons). That's probably accurate.

[Libby]

I watched that whole video, last night. That was very interesting. I liked how he tied Joseph's beliefs, at the time, with each of the changing "visions". His vision changed right along with his changing beliefs about the nature of God.

[The Pheonix]

A lot of critics have never read the Book of Mormon. They only know (believe) that Joseph Smith (or someone) made it up.

As Sandra pointed out, the book was written in the early stages of Joseph's quest and it sounds very 19th Century protestant. That, and the long p***ages of Isaiah, make for a very "biblical sounding" book.Very true, they only know verses that are taken from the writings of other no-mos, out of context and misused for the application. If I were going to spend countless hours everyday criticizes it, I would want to at least have read it and understand the context in which the verse is used.

If Joseph did just "make it up", he had an understanding of Biblical doctrine that would make any P.h.d, feel like they wasted 200,000 on their education, knowing a guy with Joseph's education could make up something like 2 Nephi 9-10, where Jacob gave a perfect understanding of the Atonement and "why" the Atonement. Mosiah 1-5...greatest sermon since the Sermon on the Mount. Just to name two of my head...I would do more but two of my grandbabies just got here! Got to go help Nanny watch them. ;)

[The Pheonix]

England, wow, lucky you. :) I have an LDS cousin who served his mission in England, as well, probably at, approximately, the same time. He is about ten or twelve years younger than me. Still a very active Mormon..with seven children. He moved to Utah to be at the center of things.

Thanks for the link. I'll have a look. I have heard and read about Joseph's changing theology, in several different places. I'm also familiar with Grant Palmer.I see it this way...been a member for 36 years, so I have been a missionary for 36 years in many countries and 33 States...:) I'm not done yet. I noticed that Billy was in England at the same time I visited there from (what was then) West Germany. I loved it there!

[alanmolstad]

I just noticed that there is a Phoenix and The Pheonix on the board. I thought you two were one in the same. Yikes. Sorry! Just now noticed that.
someone needs to get a different name...this situation sounds like an accident waiting to happen....

[Apologette]

Very true, they only know verses that are taken from the writings of other no-mos, out of context and misused for the application. If I were going to spend countless hours everyday criticizes it, I would want to at least have read it and understand the context in which the verse is used.

If Joseph did just "make it up", he had an understanding of Biblical doctrine that would make any P.h.d, feel like they wasted 200,000 on their education, knowing a guy with Joseph's education could make up something like 2 Nephi 9-10, where Jacob gave a perfect understanding of the Atonement and "why" the Atonement. Mosiah 1-5...greatest sermon since the Sermon on the Mount. Just to name two of my head...I would do more but two of my grandbabies just got here! Got to go help Nanny watch them. ;)

First off, Joe Smith had the help of Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery as he was writing the BoM, not translating it from Reformed Egyptian, but using the Spaulding m****cript...written by a Christian who was well educated. And who needs a Ph.D. to know that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ? Do you seriously think one has to be super-educated to know this:

Acts 16: 29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,

30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Here's your wonderful verses:

9 Wherefore, he is the firstfruits unto God, inasmuch as he shall make intercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved.

10 And because of the intercession for all, all men come unto God; wherefore, they stand in the presence of him, to be judged of him according to the truth and holiness which is in him. Wherefore, the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given, unto the inflicting of the punishment which is affixed, which punishment that is affixed is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement—

A bunch of worthless, senseless blather that is meaningless - all men do not come "unto God," and those that don't are judged already.

Hasn't any Christian here set you straight?

[Libby]

I see it this way...been a member for 36 years, so I have been a missionary for 36 years in many countries and 33 States...:) I'm not done yet. I noticed that Billy was in England at the same time I visited there from (what was then) West Germany. I loved it there!

Well, you know the saying. Every member a missionary.

I visited England in 2000....absolutely loved it! Would love to go back someday.

[RealFakeHair]

Yes, that is interesting. If John and Sandra are correct, then I don't see how the Book of Mormon can be of satanic origin as certain anti-bom people claim.

It aint the fact the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, it is how it is used to lure innocents to their eternal ****ation.
**** Joseph Smith jr. To Hell for that!

[Billyray]

Very true, they only know verses that are taken from the writings of other no-mos, out of context and misused for the application. If I were going to spend countless hours everyday criticizes it, I would want to at least have read it and understand the context in which the verse is used.

I think what you say is true for a lot of critics of the Mormon church--but not all critics. There are some who are well versed in the Mormon religion. I think LDS fall into the trap that they ***ume that they are right and when there is criticism it must be pulled out of context or misquoted. I was exactly the same way when I was LDS. I was a life long mormon and served a full time mission but went inactive not long after my mission--however I still believed what Mormonism taught. A friend gave my wife (who was an active LDS member at time) an "anti-Mormon" book and since I knew more about the church I told her to give it to me so I could show her that it was wrong. At the time I "knew that the LDS church was the only true church" and I ***umed that I could easily disprove what was written in the book and show her that the quotes were pulled out of context or simply misquoted. As I went about trying to prove that the book was false I ended up proving that it was true for the most part--which then started me on a path of ongoing in depth study that lead me to the Biblical Christ/Christianity. You would be wise to at least consider what the criticisms are with an open mind and then check the sources etc. Once you know the truth then you will then need to make a decision of whether to accept the many problems with Mormonism and stay OR do what I did and leave it for Christianity. There are many LDS who see all of the problems but they like the members and community and end up staying.

[Billyray]

If Joseph did just "make it up", he had an understanding of Biblical doctrine that would make any P.h.d, feel like they wasted 200,000 on their education, knowing a guy with Joseph's education could make up something like 2 Nephi 9-10, where Jacob gave a perfect understanding of the Atonement and "why" the Atonement. Mosiah 1-5...greatest sermon since the Sermon on the Mount. Just to name two of my head...I would do more but two of my grandbabies just got here! Got to go help Nanny watch them. ;)
If you step back and take an objective point of view and see all of the works of fiction in any library or book store you would realize that there are many gifted writers who write complex works of fiction--including religious fiction.

[Libby]

I think we also have to take into consideration that the first edition of the Book of Mormon was fairly crude in, both spelling and grammar. A lot of changes have been made, over the years.

[Billyray]

I think we also have to take into consideration that the first edition of the Book of Mormon was fairly crude in, both spelling and grammar. A lot of changes have been made, over the years.
You are right there were a lot of changes--"3,913 Changes in the Book of Mormon"
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/3913intro.htm

Also note some important changes about the LDS Godhead--which ties into the discussion we had about Joeseph Smith's changing beliefs in God as discussed in the Grant Palmer video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCp4gWI_tWo&index=34&list=WL





The Changing World of Mormonism--chapter 7
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech7.htm#183

". . .Serious Changes

As we pointed out in another chapter, the Mormons claim that a voice from heaven told the witnesses to the Book of Mormon that the translation was correct. In spite of this Joseph Smith tried to change the Book of Mormon to support his concept of a plurality of Gods. Four important changes were made in the second edition of the Book of Mormon concerning the Godhead. One of the most significant changes was made in 1 Nephi 13:40. In the 1830 edition it was stated that the very purpose of the Nephite records was to make known that Christ is the Eternal Father: "... These last records, ... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world ..." (Book of Mormon, 1830 ed., p. 32).

In the current Utah edition, page 25, verse 40, three words have been interpolated: "... These last records, ... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world...."

A second important change was made in 1 Nephi 11:18; this is page 25 of the 1830 edition. In the first edition it read: "... Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh." In modern editions it has been changed to read: "... Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh." Notice that the words "the Son of" have been inserted in the middle of the sentence. Verse 21 of the same chapter originally read: "And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!" It was changed to read: "And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!" Verse 32 of the same chapter, which is on page 26 of the original edition, was also changed. In the 1830 edition it read: "... the Everlasting God, was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record." It was changed to read: "... the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world: and I saw and bear record." These additions begin to distinguish the Son from the Father and are part of the process that ultimately led Joseph Smith to declare the Father and the Son as two separate gods. . ."

[Libby]

I like the side by side charts, from Mormon Transitions.

http://mit.irr.org/changes-latter-day-scripture

[Billyray]

I like the side by side charts, from Mormon Transitions.

http://mit.irr.org/changes-latter-day-scripture
Thanks for the link. It makes it much easier to see the changes when they are side by side. These changes sure seem to follow what you would expect with the changes in the different versions of the First Vision as outlined by Grant Palmer. I find it odd that Joseph made these changes but then failed to take out all of the other p***ages that teach the same thing. Maybe these were just the most obvious to him at the time.

". . .Changes in Doctrine. Key P***ages on Deity in the original 1830 text of the Book of Mormon were changed in the 1837 edition to reflect Joseph Smith’s changing doctrine of Deity. Joseph originally taught that Jesus and the Father were the same person and that God had always been God, but later developed the idea that the Father and Son were separate Gods, each with a tangible body. Smith taught that both God the Father and Jesus had been mortal men. What follows are specific examples from the original 1830 first edition Book of Mormon (which did not have verse divisions) compared with the altered text of recent versions. . ."

[Libby]

One of the most significant changes was made in 1 Nephi 13:40. In the 1830 edition it was stated that the very purpose of the Nephite records was to make known that Christ is the Eternal Father: "... These last records, ... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world ..." (Book of Mormon, 1830 ed., p. 32).

Yes, this shows Joseph's modalistic beliefs, in the beginning, which then changed to the separate personages, you see in the later version.

[Libby]

Thanks for the link. It makes it much easier to see the changes when they are side by side. These changes sure seem to follow what you would expect with the changes in the different versions of the First Vision as outlined by Grant Palmer. I find it odd that Joseph made these changes but then failed to take out all of the other p***ages that teach the same thing. Maybe these were just the most obvious to him at the time.

". . .Changes in Doctrine. Key P***ages on Deity in the original 1830 text of the Book of Mormon were changed in the 1837 edition to reflect Joseph Smith’s changing doctrine of Deity. Joseph originally taught that Jesus and the Father were the same person and that God had always been God, but later developed the idea that the Father and Son were separate Gods, each with a tangible body. Smith taught that both God the Father and Jesus had been mortal men. What follows are specific examples from the original 1830 first edition Book of Mormon (which did not have verse divisions) compared with the altered text of recent versions. . ."

Yes, exactly. (We were cross posting :) )

[Libby]

Part 2 of Sandra Tanner's interview is now available. I just finished listening to it. Some interesting stuff in this one, including her story on the Mark Hoffman forgeries.

http://mormonstories.org/

[Libby]

There is an interesting story, in the interview, about LeGrand Richards that kind of shows his character. Not in a good way, either.

[Libby]

I listened to Part 3, tonight.

Sandra was saying that the number one reason people leave the LDS Church is over the Book of Abraham....the fact that Joseph's "translation" did not line up with what the papyri actually said. John Dehlin's research bears that out, as well. He did extensive research on why Mormons leave. I think it became a part of the work for his Phd in Counseling.

Anyway, Sandra also talked about polygamy, particularly, Joseph's marriages to young girls and already married women. She said that most people she talked to were more bothered by the polyandry...but, she, personally, was more bothered by the marriages to young girls. I have to agree with her on that. That part bothered me more than anything else. It was one of the things that made me feel Joseph could not have been a real prophet.

Anyway, I think there are four parts to this interview. I've listened to all but the fourth. (Looks like Part 4 is not up yet)

They are all here, if anyone is interested.

http://mormonstories.org/

[Libby]

Correction. The number one reason, given by John (through his research) was:

"Were never really converted/integrated!in the first!place. Probably the largest single group (e.g.,low income converts who were never active, or who go inactive almost immediately…if they were ever active to begin with)."

That seems to be the largest group.

http://whymormonsleave.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Why-Mormons-Leave-Comprehensive-List-February-2014.pdf

[Apologette]

Correction. The number one reason, given by John (through his research) was:

"Were never really converted/integrated!in the first!place. Probably the largest single group (e.g.,low income converts who were never active, or who go inactive almost immediately…if they were ever active to begin with)."

That seems to be the largest group.

http://whymormonsleave.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Why-Mormons-Leave-Comprehensive-List-February-2014.pdf
I have a son-in-law from Ecuador. His family was quite poor and the Mormon missionaries gave the family goods and food, and the whole family was baptized. When the missionaries left their area, the family reverted to folk religion and Roman Catholicism. If you talk to him today, he'll tell you he knows nothing about Mormonism's beliefs. But he and his family are still counted as Mormon.

[Libby]

Yes, I've heard that has been somewhat of a problem...one that the church (from my understanding) is trying to rectify, by building better support systems within the communities where they are proselytizing..

[Apologette]

Yes, I've heard that has been somewhat of a problem...one that the church (from my understanding) is trying to rectify, by building better support systems within the communities where they are proselytizing..
Libby, do you want these missionaries to succeed in converting third world people?

[Libby]

Libby, do you want these missionaries to succeed in converting third world people?

Where did I say that?

[Libby]

It's a "problem" from the church's viewpoint. Might actually be a blessing, in reality.

[Apologette]

It's a "problem" from the church's viewpoint. Might actually be a blessing, in reality.

The Mormon cult is evil, Libby, and any attempt it makes to draw poor third world country folks into its web is demonic! Our Christian missionaries (and my daughter and son-in-law have done missionary work in Africa) have enough to contend with in terms of the inroads of Islam - they don't need to be combating the wicked onslaught of Mormon pretenders too!

[Apologette]

Where did I say that?

It's not that you actually said that - it's the way you comment about what they are doing. You must realize the evil their missionaries are doing, don't you?

[Libby]

I don't, generally, like to use the word "evil" against the church. Feels very wrong, to me. I think JS did do some terribly evil things, but to use that word against today's church and the membership (including the hierarchy) just doesn't seem accurate. It's unnecessarily divisive and insulting to the Mormon people (who are not evil). I think the doctrine is in deep error, in many, many ways....but, I also believe there are many people in that church who find Jesus, despite the errors. One of the reasons they do find him is because they are genuinely seeking and reaching out to him. And, he is reaching out to them. I don't think our beliefs about God and Jesus have to be perfect in order to have a relationship with him. I am a prime example of that. I know this through experience.

I have no problem debating LDS doctrine, just as rigorously as I have debated Calvinism...but, I do believe it is more productive to focus on doctrine and not phrased in a way that insults the Mormon people. I have a lot of respect for them and I know "most" are doing what they believe is best and right. Again...that doesn't mean I won't argue against the doctrine and even the history and JS. I can and will, if anyone is interested.

Not much interest here, at this point.

[Libby]

What I like most about Sandra Tanner is that she does her homework and keeps most things impersonal. She is an information gatherer and she will lay it out there and let you make of it what you will. She rarely gets insulting (although, she doesn't spare any of the leadership whom she believes have done "evil"). But, her whole family is LDS, so she has always had to walk that fine line between pointing out error and not being personally insulting. I heard her say, once, that she does not discuss any of this with family anymore. It's a sort of truce they have made, so that every family gathering doesn't turn into endless arguments over religion. I kind of feel that way with my LDS friends, both, here and in real life. It's not that we haven't ever discussed the problems, but sometimes it gets to the point where it's only arguing and nothing (no good thing) is being accomplished.

[Apologette]

I don't, generally, like to use the word "evil" against the church. Feels very wrong, to me. I think JS did do some terribly evil things, but to use that word against today's church and the membership (including the hierarchy) just doesn't seem accurate. It's unnecessarily divisive and insulting to the Mormon people (who are not evil). I think the doctrine is in deep error, in many, many ways....but, I also believe there are many people in that church who find Jesus, despite the errors. One of the reasons they do find him is because they are genuinely seeking and reaching out to him. And, he is reaching out to them. I don't think our beliefs about God and Jesus have to be perfect in order to have a relationship with him. I am a prime example of that. I know this through experience.

I have no problem debating LDS doctrine, just as rigorously as I have debated Calvinism...but, I do believe it is more productive to focus on doctrine and not phrased in a way that insults the Mormon people. I have a lot of respect for them and I know "most" are doing what they believe is best and right. Again...that doesn't mean I won't argue against the doctrine and even the history and JS. I can and will, if anyone is interested.

Not much interest here, at this point.

Well, then the problem is with you, Libby. What does the Bible say:

1 Timothy 4: 1But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,…

How about Paul's condemnation of those bringing another gospel, as the Mormons do:

Galatains 1: I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

Are you more comp***ionate than God? He is the one Who inspired Paul to write these things? You better get your priorities right: These Mormons are dishing out death, eternal death, to millions - are you going to sit on the side line and say we can't call that evil? Just because Mormons "believe" they are doing the right thing, gives them NO Excuse. They have God's Word, and they have rejected that in favor of an EVIL WORD!

Yet you say nothing about the Mormon here who called a great Christian, John Calvin, a devil and a murderer? Seems you have problems, Libby - which side are you on? Have you repented of Mormonism?

[Apologette]

I think we also have to take into consideration that the first edition of the Book of Mormon was fairly crude in, both spelling and grammar. A lot of changes have been made, over the years.

Why do we have to take that into consideration? Smith proclaimed that God told him that it was the most correct book in the whole world. Why are you always trying to justify Mormonism's obvious problems? If, as Whitmer said, Smith translated "word for word" while looking into his top hat with magic stones, is it God Who has the grammar problems? Ask yourself why you are constantly making "excuses" for Mormonism?

[Libby]

Why do we have to take that into consideration? Smith proclaimed that God told him that it was the most correct book in the whole world. Why are you always trying to justify Mormonism's obvious problems? If, as Whitmer said, Smith translated "word for word" while looking into his top hat with magic stones, is it God Who has the grammar problems? Ask yourself why you are constantly making "excuses" for Mormonism?

I think you weren't following the conversation. My remark was not a justification. Someone said that Joseph must have been brilliant (very smart or something like that) to have written such a book. My comment was to remind that the original work was not nearly as polished as it is today. It definitely showed Joseph's lack of education in the many spelling and grammar errors.

Not that he wasn't smart....I'm sure he was.

[Libby]

Well, then the problem is with you, Libby. What does the Bible say:

1 Timothy 4: 1But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,…

How about Paul's condemnation of those bringing another gospel, as the Mormons do:

Galatains 1: I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

Are you more comp***ionate than God? He is the one Who inspired Paul to write these things? You better get your priorities right: These Mormons are dishing out death, eternal death, to millions - are you going to sit on the side line and say we can't call that evil? Just because Mormons "believe" they are doing the right thing, gives them NO Excuse. They have God's Word, and they have rejected that in favor of an EVIL WORD!

Yet you say nothing about the Mormon here who called a great Christian, John Calvin, a devil and a murderer? Seems you have problems, Libby - which side are you on? Have you repented of Mormonism?

I am not on the sidelines in regards to Mormonism, but I am not you. Why don't you just trust God and allow him to work through me in the way he sees fit? Have I repented of Mormonism? Yes..I turned away from that along time ago. But, I have to say, I believe God had a plan for me, through that experience...in other words there was a reason I was there.

As for John Calvin, I would not call him "a great Christian", when he has led so many people into error. I'm not saying he wasn't a Christian, either, and I don't believe he was "evil"...but, I can certainly understand why some believe he was. Even many Evangelicals believe he was "evil", Apologette.

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/calvin_servetus.htm

[Libby]

John Calvin became a major stumbling block for me, as I was trying to enter back into mainstream Christianity. The more I studied his theology, the more I was convicted that it could not be true. I even read three of the four books of Calvin's Ins***utes. John Calvin was very bright and also very opinionated and had a quite caustic personality. It really shows through in the Ins***utes.

The read was interesting, to say the least.

[Apologette]

I am not on the sidelines in regards to Mormonism, but I am not you. Why don't you just trust God and allow him to work through me in the way he sees fit? Have I repented of Mormonism? Yes..I turned away from that along time ago. But, I have to say, I believe God had a plan for me, through that experience...in other words there was a reason I was there.

As for John Calvin, I would not call him "a great Christian", when he has led so many people into error. I'm not saying he wasn't a Christian, either, and I don't believe he was "evil"...but, I can certainly understand why some believe he was. Even many Evangelicals believe he was "evil", Apologette.

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/calvin_servetus.htm
I don't give a flying heck what you think about John Calvin, you haven't exactly demonstrated any consistent ability to recognize true doctrine from false doctrine. And if you hate John Calvin so much, what the heck are you doing going to a Christian Reformed Church which derives its doctrines from John Calvin? You just set yourself up as judge over Calvin when, in reality, you need to judge you own beliefs. Your sloppy agape approach to Mormonism is never going to lead one soul out of that horror house of doctrine, but your refusal to call Mormonism a giant mound of the doctrines of demons just may lead many to believe, "hey, it's ain't so bad."

By the way, Servetus is one of the examples MORMONS use to badmouth John Calvin - and Servetus rejected the Holy Trinity.....whereas Joe Smith called the Holy Trinity a three-headed monster. If I thought God was using sloppy agape to help anyone, I'd back off - but never in all the long years I've been a Christian (and not a Hindu or a Mormon besides) I've never seen that compromising technique of sloppy agape lead anybody away from Mormonism or any other cult.

[Apologette]

John Calvin became a major stumbling block for me, as I was trying to enter back into mainstream Christianity. The more I studied his theology, the more I was convicted that it could not be true. I even read three of the four books of Calvin's Ins***utes. John Calvin was very bright and also very opinionated and had a quite caustic personality. It really shows through in the Ins***utes.

The read was interesting, to say the least.

Caustic? He couldn't hold a candle to that devil Joe Smith, and you seemed to have loved him well enough, didn't you? Let's see - John Calvin who upheld the traditional, creedal forumals as opposed to the pedophile, Joe Smith, who said our creeds were an abomination? Golly, which would have been used of God? Which would have been an emissary of Satan?

[Apologette]

Yes, this shows Joseph's modalistic beliefs, in the beginning, which then changed to the separate personages, you see in the later version.Not just separate personages, the evil Smith became a full-****n polytheistic heretic and taught that god was once a human who grew up on another planet, and that all men are potential gods. This is sheer paganism.

[Libby]

I'm not going to defend Joseph Smith. He did, indeed, do some evil things, IMO. But, I'm not going to defend John Calvin, either, who also did some evil, IMO (and in the opinion of many others).

I attend a Reformed Church with my husband, because it's his desire, at this time. I did choose the church, because I thought Calvinism was the most correct interpretation, at the time. I don't believe that anymore, but I do still find God and much edification in this church.

[Libby]

Apologette, I don't really care if you believe me or not. You seem to be very hostile towards anyone who doesn't precisely agree with your take on things. That's YOUR way, I guess, and I'm sure God does use you, in spite of that (just as as he uses all of his children, in spite of their weaknesses...or even through their weaknesses, sometimes).

I did read the first three books of John Calvin's Ins***utes. I even took a cl*** on them...an online cl*** through Covenant Theological Society. I still have the lessons downloaded on my iTunes.

When I say "caustic" (in regards to John Calvin) I simply mean he spoke his mind very bluntly and often had unkind words for his critics. I was in ongoing discussions with my "Reformed" Pastor who very much agreed with that ***essment. He said, he was quite a character...he was no staid, conservative, boring theologian (as some people might think), that's for sure. He had a very animated personality.

[Libby]

I've never seen that compromising technique of sloppy agape lead anybody away from Mormonism or any other cult.

Well, like I said, God uses us despite our weaknesses. I did lead someone out of Mormonism and it was kind of traumatic, after the fact. He did not leave for Christianity, but became an atheist. It made me question what in the heck I was doing.

I'm not ever going to be a "street screecher" (which is what I call people who use that method, even on the internet). That is simply not in me.

I think, in order to influence anyone, you first have to understand them, love them, care about them (more than just the fact that you believe they are headed for hell). People don't generally listen to someone they perceive is "hating" on them.

[Apologette]

I'm not going to defend Joseph Smith. He did, indeed, do some evil things, IMO. But, I'm not going to defend John Calvin, either, who also did some evil, IMO (and in the opinion of many others).

I attend a Reformed Church with my husband, because it's his desire, at this time. I did choose the church, because I thought Calvinism was the most correct interpretation, at the time. I don't believe that anymore, but I do still find God and much edification in this church.

So, what is the "correct" interpretation of the Scriptures? And to say Joseph Smith did SOME evil things is beyond comprehension! His whole life what one mound of demonic evil - a pedophile, adulterer, liar, banking criminal, polygamist, polytheist, and hater of the Christian Church, had himself crowned king over Israel, and leader of the murderous Danites - some evil? My dear, he was a person who totally gave himself over to Satan, and taught others to do the same.

[Apologette]

Well, like I said, God uses us despite our weaknesses. I did lead someone out of Mormonism and it was kind of traumatic, after the fact. He did not leave for Christianity, but became an atheist. It made me question what in the heck I was doing.

I'm not ever going to be a "street screecher" (which is what I call people who use that method, even on the internet). That is simply not in me.

I think, in order to influence anyone, you first have to understand them, love them, care about them (more than just the fact that you believe they are headed for hell). People don't generally listen to someone they perceive is "hating" on them.

I'm not a "street screecher," and I don't go parading in front on Mormon temples ( nor do I think Christians should do that) but I don't pander to those who are in Mormonism either - and leading someone out of Mormonism who went into atheism is really nothing you should bring up - most Mormons who leave the cult become atheists (with or without help)!

Look at your pal, Val, who on CARM has now said he's both an ex-Mormon and ex-Christian - maybe he can get into New Age Psychobabble next and become "fully human." Just because a person leaves Mormonism does not mean he is converted to Christ - for the most part, they are non-believers, have no regard for Christ, and are two times more a child of hell than when they began. Or, as happened to you, they go from one cult to another, which is a cross-cult dynamic that is common in those who become invovled in cultic systems.

[Apologette]

Well, like I said, God uses us despite our weaknesses. I did lead someone out of Mormonism and it was kind of traumatic, after the fact. He did not leave for Christianity, but became an atheist. It made me question what in the heck I was doing.

I'm not ever going to be a "street screecher" (which is what I call people who use that method, even on the internet). That is simply not in me.

I think, in order to influence anyone, you first have to understand them, love them, care about them (more than just the fact that you believe they are headed for hell). People don't generally listen to someone they perceive is "hating" on them.

You know Libby, this is where you and I part ways big time - once a person is in a cult such as the Mormons, there's a 99 percent chance he will never leave it. They are brainwashed by the cult, refuse to evaluate it on a rational level, and could care less about facts. If God is going to lead them out, He will - otherwise, they stay in the cult. You and I can lead nobody out of a cult.

However, we can prevent people from hooking up with Mormonism in the first place. Mormon baptisms are down; only 4 to 6 million Mormons, out of a supposed baptized 16 million, are even active in the cult. There are more people leaving Mormonism today than did in Kirtland when Joe Smith ripped off his followers financially. Mormonism is, thank God, going the way of Christian Science. The key is not in dragging people out of Mormonism, but in stopping people from joining the cult in the first place. Those in the cult are in God's hands, and you and I are not God. But we can warn people not to get involved - and you don't do that by saying things like, "Joseph Smith did SOME EVIL."

[Libby]

Apologette, you're not telling me anything I don't already know.

I just disagree with your mode. I think it often turns people off to your message...even non-Mormons. I know that to be true, because I have heard the complaints in various places.

You think I am too wishy-washy. I think you are too harsh.

[Apologette]

Apologette, you're not telling me anything I don't already know.

I just disagree with your mode. I think it often turns people off to your message...even non-Mormons. I know that to be true, because I have heard the complaints in various places.

You think I am too wishy-washy. I think you are too harsh.

Oh, complaints by those you have called the "street screechers" here? Are they aware of the fact that you use that term? I really don't care if they or Mormons feel all warm and bubbly about my posts, I know that many have read the truth and not become involved in Mormonism. Also, I'm not the one who has been following after false teachers. Maybe you could learn something from what I do post.

As far as being "wishy washy," I've already mentioned that sloppy agape will save nobody. I just don't know if you've ever repented of believing in Mormonism or Hinduism for that matter. Where's your testimony? Others who have left have given their testimony - where is yours? Do you have one? Last time I was here posting full time you were defending Yogananda and his Hindu cult! Then all of a sudden you show up on the Mormon forum. What is your explanation? Can you see why Christians would be slightly suspicious?

[Libby]

Also, I'm not the one who has been following after false teachers. Maybe you could learn something from what I do post.

I have learned things from you, Apologette. A couple of things you said over on the "Free Will" thread were inspiring. In most things I agree with you more often than not. I just, sometimes, cringe at the way you talk to Mormons. Maybe, that 's my failing..I'm sure it is to some large degree....and perhaps it's, also, something that you need to work on. We all have our faults and weaknesses.

I do, very much, have a testimony of Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. But, it's been a long difficult road.

I had my testimony up on Russ' site for a long time, but finally asked him to take it down, when I was having second thoughts about trying to bring LDS out of the church...

[alanmolstad]

my advice......dont share the personal stuff.......

[alanmolstad]

Well, like I said, God uses us despite our weaknesses. I did lead someone out of Mormonism and it was kind of traumatic, after the fact. He did not leave for Christianity, but became an atheist. It made me question what in the heck I was doing.

I'm not ever going to be a "street screecher" (which is what I call people who use that method, even on the internet). That is simply not in me.

I think, in order to influence anyone, you first have to understand them, love them, care about them (more than just the fact that you believe they are headed for hell). People don't generally listen to someone they perceive is "hating" on them.

wise words.....well spoke.
I enjoy your posts, and hope you will go on to have a very rich faith life and come back here and tell me all about it!

[Apologette]

I have learned things from you, Apologette. A couple of things you said over on the "Free Will" thread were inspiring. In most things I agree with you more often than not. I just, sometimes, cringe at the way you talk to Mormons. Maybe, that 's my failing..I'm sure it is to some large degree....and perhaps it's, also, something that you need to work on. We all have our faults and weaknesses.

I do, very much, have a testimony of Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. But, it's been a long difficult road.

I had my testimony up on Russ' site for a long time, but finally asked him to take it down, when I was having second thoughts about trying to bring LDS out of the church...
Yes, I recall when you asked him to take it down. Look, I'm not an evangelist to Mormons -there are a few I talk to on that level, but as a whole, I see them as tools of Satan, heretics. And what does the Bible say about heretics, Libby? "After the first and second admonition, reject them." It doesn't say pander to their "concerns" (the word that the Mormon "scholar" so-called loves to use), or be gentle with them. No, it says REJECT them. "A man that is an HERETIC after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." ***us 3:10-11. The person is "condemned of himself," in other words, by his own false beliefs, thereby sinning and being subverted.

Now I've had a personal relationship with one Mormon on CARM for years. We exchange emails. You'd be shocked to know who that is. And that is because I'm led of the Lord in that regard about this particular individual. But other than this one Mormon, I believe we are dealing with those who have completely turned their hearts and souls over to Joseph Smith and come to the boards to undermine the Gospel of Our Lord. So, what does one do? One tells the truth (you'll note that most of my threads there deal with Mormon history and doctrine) so that those looking in for information will be informed. Information is our best weapon against Mormon deception. So, I'm not an evangelist to the Mormons, but a student of Mormonism, its history and doctrine, and feel that my outreach is to those who are in the process of being deceived, or who have been approached by a neighbor or friend who is a Mormon and are researching it. Speaking "truth" to "deception" is what needs to be done to stem the Mormon onslaught and drive them back.

[Libby]

my advice......dont share the personal stuff.......

I mostly agree with that, because I know I have shared way too much in the past. But, a part of me believes that we do have to make ourselves somewhat vulnerable, when speaking of Christ and our journey...especially if we are trying to influence people in such a personal area, as religion.

[Libby]

wise words.....well spoke.
I enjoy your posts, and hope you will go on to have a very rich faith life and come back here and tell me all about it!

Thanks, Alan. You have always been very encouraging. I appreciate that.

[Libby]

Yes, I recall when you asked him to take it down. Look, I'm not an evangelist to Mormons -there are a few I talk to on that level, but as a whole, I see them as tools of Satan, heretics. And what does the Bible say about heretics, Libby? "After the first and second admonition, reject them." It doesn't say pander to their "concerns" (the word that the Mormon "scholar" so-called loves to use), or be gentle with them. No, it says REJECT them. "A man that is an HERETIC after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." ***us 3:10-11. The person is "condemned of himself," in other words, by his own false beliefs, thereby sinning and being subverted.

Now I've had a personal relationship with one Mormon on CARM for years. We exchange emails. You'd be shocked to know who that is. And that is because I'm led of the Lord in that regard about this particular individual. But other than this one Mormon, I believe we are dealing with those who have completely turned their hearts and souls over to Joseph Smith and come to the boards to undermine the Gospel of Our Lord. So, what does one do? One tells the truth (you'll note that most of my threads there deal with Mormon history and doctrine) so that those looking in for information will be informed. Information is our best weapon against Mormon deception. So, I'm not an evangelist to the Mormons, but a student of Mormonism, its history and doctrine, and feel that my outreach is to those who are in the process of being deceived, or who have been approached by a neighbor or friend who is a Mormon and are researching it. Speaking "truth" to "deception" is what needs to be done to stem the Mormon onslaught and drive them back.

Yes, I understand what you're doing and I think that's fine.

The thing is, I'm glad that the people who spoke with me about Christ, didn't give up after just a couple of admonitions. I would still be LDS, if that had been the case. A couple of people, in particular, spent hours, both in email and on the phone, talking and praying with me (and for me). I so appreciate those people. I appreciate people like Alan and Billy who will spend time talking about the Bible and their beliefs, even when we disagree. So, I would feel like an ingrate, if I simply cast off all Mormon people as hopeless heretics. I was once a hopeless heretic, myself.

So, I think God expects something from me on behalf of the Mormon people. I just have to listen and follow His lead.

Oh, and Apologette, I'm pretty sure I know who you have been talking to. :)

[Apologette]

Yes, I understand what you're doing and I think that's fine.

The thing is, I'm glad that the people who spoke with me about Christ, didn't give up after just a couple of admonitions. I would still be LDS, if that had been the case. A couple of people, in particular, spent hours, both in email and on the phone, talking and praying with me (and for me). I so appreciate those people. I appreciate people like Alan and Billy who will spend time talking about the Bible and their beliefs, even when we disagree. So, I would feel like an ingrate, if I simply cast off all Mormon people as hopeless heretics. I was once a hopeless heretic, myself.

So, I think God expects something from me on behalf of the Mormon people. I just have to listen and follow His lead.

Oh, and Apologette, I'm pretty sure I know who you have been talking to. :)
It's one thing to witness on a personal level to somebody, quite another to post on a board dedicated to apologetics. Apologetics is for the defense of the faith. By the way, how did you become invovled in Mormonism in the first place? Weren't you raised Christian?

[alanmolstad]

It's one thing to witness on a personal level to somebody, quite another to post on a board dedicated to apologetics. ?

says who?

where is that written down?

[alanmolstad]

talking to some person to person can be scarey as the words you might say can really change a person's life.

compare that to posting on an internet chat or message forum...where no matter how hard you try to write something, the next guy posting 2 seconds after you can cancel-out all you have said with the use of a frowny-face :(

[Apologette]

It's one thing to witness on a personal level to somebody, quite another to post on a board dedicated to apologetics. Apologetics is for the defense of the faith. By the way, how did you become invovled in Mormonism in the first place? Weren't you raised Christian?

Move on, move on.

[Libby]

It's one thing to witness on a personal level to somebody, quite another to post on a board dedicated to apologetics. Apologetics is for the defense of the faith. By the way, how did you become invovled in Mormonism in the first place? Weren't you raised Christian?

I was witnessing over on CARM to the person I mentioned above. It wasn't a "face to face" exchange.

How I got involved with Mormonism is kind of a long story. Briefly, I had been very agnostic for many years, after I left SRF in the 70's. I had felt a "hole" in my life for along time, but I was busy going to school, raising kids and with life, in general, and didn't really pursue anything spiritual. In 2000/2001 I experienced a chain of events that left me feeling a great need for God in my life, again. It seemed like I was being led into the LDS Church, because so many things happened that led me in that direction. I ended up reading the entire Book of Mormon, within about a month's time. I received a great deal of comfort from various parts of it...and I was then baptized into the church.

That's the short version.

[Apologette]

I was witnessing over on CARM to the person I mentioned above. It wasn't a "face to face" exchange.

How I got involved with Mormonism is kind of a long story. Briefly, I had been very agnostic for many years, after I left SRF in the 70's. I had felt a "hole" in my life for along time, but I was busy going to school, raising kids and with life, in general, and didn't really pursue anything spiritual. In 2000/2001 I experienced a chain of events that left me feeling a great need for God in my life, again. It seemed like I was being led into the LDS Church, because so many things happened that led me in that direction. I ended up reading the entire Book of Mormon, within about a month's time. I received a great deal of comfort from various parts of it...and I was then baptized into the church.

That's the short version.
I have never found anything comforting at all about the Book of Mormon and think it is a poorly written imitation of the Bible. So, basically, though raised in the Christian church as a child, you never were regenerated through faith in Christ, drifted into a Hindu-based fellowship, but this was not fulfilling; then you were lured into Mormonism by " a great need in your life" that you believed Mormonism could somehow fill.

I ***ume that you left Mormonism after some time, drifted back into SRF, and now are attending a Christian Church. Tell me, when you were in Mormonism did its Christology bother you at all? Its rejection of the Trinity? How much did you know about the lifestyle of Joseph Smith? And, finally, through all these sad events, did you finally throw up your hands and tell the Lord Jesus that you were a sinner and needed him to save you? Were you rebaptized as a Christian?

Sorry for all these questions, but now I can see more clearly the effects these events have had in your life.

[Libby]

then you were lured into Mormonism by " a great need in your life" that you believed Mormonism could somehow fill.

Perhaps, it was "lured", but you have to understand, at the time, I felt led by God, through a whole series of events that happened fairly close together. These things just fell into my lap, once I started praying to God, again. I had a very difficult time with that, once I realized Mormonism was not true....like God had lied to me. I know that's not possible, but it was confusing to me, at first. I think this happens to a lot of LDS and one of the main reasons they drop out of religion altogether. So sad.

Once I started really reading/studying the Bible, I began to realize the problem was mine.

[Libby]

I ***ume that you left Mormonism after some time, drifted back into SRF, and now are attending a Christian Church.

I went directly from Mormonism into a Christian Church. I went to a mega church, in my area (Eastside Christian) for a whole year, but I did not do well there. I had been out of Christianity for years and a lot had changed, as far as style of worship. I felt very lost in this church, even though I attended with my two granddaughters. I attended their newcomers cl***es and actually joined the church. They told me baptism was not required, since I had already been baptized into a Christian Church at age eight. So, it was great in the beginning, but I was never able to make a real connection, there. I just felt lost. So, after a year of that, I dropped out and went back to the comfort and safety of the LDS Church! That was in 2009.

That lasted only about four months. I loved being back with my friends and feeling a certain comfort zone there, but the doctrine! By then, I knew way too much. Had to leave again (and have not even thought of going back, since that time). After that, I found the Christian Reformed Church, that I still attend. Had a whole set of new problems with Calvinism, which took me out for a few months. What brought me back was my husband. He had been attending with me the last few months, before I left, and he really loved this church. When he had to have back surgery (which was quite an ordeal), he requested a visit from the Pastor of this church. He, then, asked me to go back with him, and so we did, as soon as he got better...and have been there ever since. That was about a year and half ago.

[Apologette]

Perhaps, it was "lured", but you have to understand, at the time, I felt led by God, through a whole series of events that happened fairly close together. These things just fell into my lap, once I started praying to God, again. I had a very difficult time with that, once I realized Mormonism was not true....like God had lied to me. I know that's not possible, but it was confusing to me, at first. I think this happens to a lot of LDS and one of the main reasons they drop out of religion altogether. So sad.

Once I started really reading/studying the Bible, I began to realize the problem was mine.

Actually, unlike posters at CARM, I'm not opposed to Roman Catholicism, just some aspects of it. That wasn't a really bad choice for you to take the catechism cl***es. You'd probably fit in there better than the Christian Reformed church, which is Calvinist. Catholicism is Arminian. And I've noticed that fewer Roman Catholics get sucked into cultic systems of any type. Being Anglican, I guess I strongly prefer sacramental churches. I especially like the fact that they teach creedal theology (which is lacking in so many Christian churches). I still attend an Anglican Church (Anglican Episcopal) so that I can receive "real" communion and stay in touch with the ancient church (my husband prefers Calvary Chapel where we attend three out of four Sundays). But I can sympathize with you, actually, as to not "fitting in" to a mega church, or other denominational varieties. Actually, I haven't either. I don't like mega churches (too impersonal), and other than Calvary Chapels (which is sort of semi-Arminian), I've never really liked "mega church" worship style. Calvary Chapels, on the other hand, are like an intense Bible study (and you'd probably like that I bet).

[Libby]

My husband was raised Catholic, went to Catholic schools and the whole nine yards. He disliked that church so much, mainly because of some cruelty he experienced by nuns, in the Catholic schools he attended. So, I doubt I could ever get him near a Catholic Church, again...except that two of our children married Catholics and have baptized our grandchildren into the church. He had to go to that. :)

I enjoy the rituals of the Catholic Church...and we do get some of that, even in the Christian Reformed Church, which is more traditional than others I have attended.

I went to Calvary Chapel for a short time, as well.

[Apologette]

My husband was raised Catholic, went to Catholics schools and the whole nine yards. He disliked that church so much, mainly because of some cruelty he experienced by nuns, in the Catholic schools he attended. So, I doubt I could ever get him near a Catholic Church, again...except that two of our children married Catholics and have baptized our grandchildren into the church. He had to go to that. :)

I enjoy the rituals of the Catholic Church...and we do get some of that, even in the Christian Reformed Church, which is more traditional than others I have attended.

I went to Calvary Chapel for a short time, as well.

My husband was also raised Catholic - he didn't go to the schools however. The Church has changed over the years - less "mean" if you know what I mean. My daughter and I visited St. Louis Basiilica in St. Louis and loved the worship there - not to mention the great beauty (which is missing in much of Protestantism). My husband prefers Calvary Chapels because of the teaching - but he also attends the Anglican m*** with me one time a month for "real communion."

[Libby]

That's very interesting. I had noticed your preference for Anglican Churches. What do you mean by "real communion"?

The CRC uses leavened bread (plain white bread) in their communion. When I first had communion there, I thought about the criticisms that LDS receive, about using leavened bread.

[Apologette]

That's very interesting. I had noticed your preference for Anglican Churches. What do you mean by "real communion"?

The CRC uses leavened bread (plain white bread) in their communion. When I first had communion there, I thought about the criticisms that LDS receive, about using leavened bread.

To be Scriptural, the bread should be unleavened, as used at the Jewish P***over, and they should use wine. These two items are mandatory for a kosher P***over. I once discussed this with a Jewish friend. Anglicans and Catholics call the bread a "host," and it is uleavened. By "real communion" I mean celebrated with the belief in the "real presence" of Christ in the Eucharist, and that grace is present ex opere operato. On CARM, I think Bonnie and I are the only posters holding to this view. I also believe that we should follow the practice of the first century church which celebrated the Eucharist at the very least, weekly.

I don't know why Protestants use leavened bread if they are so particular in other things. Eastern Orthodox do as well, which is one problem I have with the E.O. At CC they use matzoh, which is good.

[RealFakeHair]

To be Scriptural, the bread should be unleavened, as used at the Jewish P***over, and they should use wine. These two items are mandatory for a kosher P***over. I once discussed this with a Jewish friend. Anglicans and Catholics call the bread a "host," and it is uleavened. By "real communion" I mean celebrated with the belief in the "real presence" of Christ in the Eucharist, and that grace is present ex opere operato. On CARM, I think Bonnie and I are the only posters holding to this view. I also believe that we should follow the practice of the first century church which celebrated the Eucharist at the very least, weekly.

I don't know why Protestants use leavened bread if they are so particular in other things. Eastern Orthodox do as well, which is one problem I have with the E.O. At CC they use matzoh, which is good.

It doesn't make a hill of beams difference. You can use soda crackers and kool-aid.

[Libby]

Then that would make us "real" koolaid drinkers! ;)

Apologette, I thought it was kind of odd, too. Other Christian Churches I've attended use matzoh or unsalted crackers. All have used grape juice, as well (not wine).

[Apologette]

It doesn't make a hill of beams difference. You can use soda crackers and kool-aid.

Sorry, Fake, but Jesus said "as often as you do THIS!" He didn't use crackers and kool-aid.

[Apologette]

Then that would make us "real" koolaid drinkers! ;)

Apologette, I thought it was kind of odd, too. Other Christian Churches I've attended use matzoh or unsalted crackers. All have used grape juice, as well (not wine).

Catholics, Anglicans and EOs use wine, as did Jesus. I have yet to see somebody with a drinking problem run straight from the communion rail to a bar! It's silly to be more "holy" than was the Lord.

[cheachea]

LOLS :D That is Hilarious.

[alanmolstad]

Sorry, Fake, but Jesus said "as often as you do THIS!" He didn't use crackers and kool-aid.

well...the bread was a cracker.....

[RealFakeHair]

Sorry, Fake, but Jesus said "as often as you do THIS!" He didn't use crackers and kool-aid.

Correct, He said do this not eat this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Libby]

I think the "DO THIS" was referring to the taking of the bread and wine.

Oh wait...I see what you mean, RFH. "Do this" in remembrance of Me, doesn't really indicate that it has to be a specific kind of bread and "wine". I guess, it just seems more authentic, if we use the same items that Jesus used. I like that, actually. Other than the Catholic Church, I have never been to a church that uses real wine.

[RealFakeHair]

I think the "DO THIS" was referring to the taking of the bread and wine.

Oh wait...I see what you mean, RFH. "Do this" in remembrance of Me, doesn't really indicate that it has to be a specific kind of bread and "wine". I guess, it just seems more authentic, if we use the same items that Jesus used. I like that, actually. Other than the Catholic Church, I have never been to a church that uses real wine.
To be more authentic, well there were no women there so?

[alanmolstad]

Ok Libby, and ...um....others.

i have a story to tell about the p***over.

[alanmolstad]

I am a normal christian kid....thought I understood the "last Supper " story well enough.....



I was wrong.

a few weeks ago i was invited by a Jewish friend in my sword cl*** to attend the p***over.....(Sader)

[Libby]

I am a normal christian kid....thought I understood the "last Supper " story well enough.....



I was wrong.

a few weeks ago i was invited by a Jewish friend in my sword cl*** to attend the p***over.....(Sader)

That's awesome! :) I was privileged to attend a Sader many years ago. It was very interesting.

[alanmolstad]

there is a part of the meal when they take some of the cracker, ( the bread) and break it in half, and take one half and wrap it, and then take it into the other room and hide it.....later the lost half is found and returned to be shared by all.

This I think is the bread that Jesus used when he said "This is my body..."

It fits....the bread is broken....and then it's wrapped,,,and hidden, (buried)...but then returns....

[alanmolstad]

and the wine........I did not expect there is so much wine drank.....and the cups.....and how one of the cups was the one Jesus used to say, "This is my blood"

and the reason Jesus could not drink the 4th cup of wine......

[Apologette]

I think the "DO THIS" was referring to the taking of the bread and wine.

Oh wait...I see what you mean, RFH. "Do this" in remembrance of Me, doesn't really indicate that it has to be a specific kind of bread and "wine". I guess, it just seems more authentic, if we use the same items that Jesus used. I like that, actually. Other than the Catholic Church, I have never been to a church that uses real wine.
Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox use real wine, as was used at P***over and is commanded in the Bible.

[Apologette]

That's awesome! :) I was privileged to attend a Sader many years ago. It was very interesting.

Yes, a Seder is very similar to what Jesus did with the Apostles on the night before His death. You'll note they use sacramental wine!

[Apologette]

there is a part of the meal when they take some of the cracker, ( the bread) and break it in half, and take one half and wrap it, and then take it into the other room and hide it.....later the lost half is found and returned to be shared by all.

This I think is the bread that Jesus used when he said "This is my body..."

It fits....the bread is broken....and then it's wrapped,,,and hidden, (buried)...but then returns....

And the matzoh was baked in an oven using spikes; when you take the matzoh off of those spikes, you'll note a cross on the matzoh. I saw this at a Jews for Jesus presentation. If you want to understand Christianity within its original context, hang out with converted Jews!

[Libby]

Yes, a Seder is very similar to what Jesus did with the Apostles on the night before His death. You'll note they use sacramental wine!

Seder, yes! We misspelled it.

Had to look up sacramental wine.

What is Sacramental Wine? by Fr. Thomas McKey, SJ. (1938)
As regards the Roman Catholic Church, Sacramental wine, or more correctly, Altar Wine, is simply the unadulterated juice of the fully ripened and matured grape, fermented until all the natural sugar, generally 22-24% Balling, has been changed to alcohol, known as a dry wine; i.e. a wine with only a small quan***y of reducing sugars remaining, imparting a tart or dry taste.

This wine is then carefully handled and aged over a period of years, no chemicals being added to it to help or quicken aging…

[Apologette]

Seder, yes! We misspelled it.

Had to look up sacramental wine.

What is Sacramental Wine? by Fr. Thomas McKey, SJ. (1938)
As regards the Roman Catholic Church, Sacramental wine, or more correctly, Altar Wine, is simply the unadulterated juice of the fully ripened and matured grape, fermented until all the natural sugar, generally 22-24% Balling, has been changed to alcohol, known as a dry wine; i.e. a wine with only a small quan***y of reducing sugars remaining, imparting a tart or dry taste.

This wine is then carefully handled and aged over a period of years, no chemicals being added to it to help or quicken aging…
Sacramental wine for a Jewish Seder is Kosher wine.

[alanmolstad]

we had our choice of strong wine....or grape juice....Both were on the table.

[alanmolstad]

So I went right away for the strong wine.....and I filled up my cup for the first cut that we enjoyed.
I was warned that "it's a long night"....but I decided that a tall cup of wine would start the meal off correct for me.

I was mistaken.

The fact is, i was not ready for how strong this wine was, and on top of that the meal goes on a long time before you actually get to really eat the "Big Food" that the moms had in the kitchen.

At the start of the evening, all you eat is some weird stuff, and things dipped in salt water....

I was a bit too hungry and so the wine really kicked my tail.....


So.....in other words....I got kinda sleepy....:cool:

[Libby]

Yes, I remember there was a lot of ritual, story telling and prayer before the "main meal". Poor Alan! lol

[Libby]

Sacramental wine for a Jewish Seder is Kosher wine.


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

[Apologette]

So I went right away for the strong wine.....and I filled up my cup for the first cut that we enjoyed.
I was warned that "it's a long night"....but I decided that a tall cup of wine would start the meal off correct for me.

I was mistaken.

The fact is, i was not ready for how strong this wine was, and on top of that the meal goes on a long time before you actually get to really eat the "Big Food" that the moms had in the kitchen.

At the start of the evening, all you eat is some weird stuff, and things dipped in salt water....

I was a bit too hungry and so the wine really kicked my tail.....


So.....in other words....I got kinda sleepy....:cool:
Which is why the Bible warns against wine bibbers!

[alanmolstad]

I was innocent.....I had no idea that Jews drank that much and that strong of wine.....

[RealFakeHair]

we had our choice of strong wine....or grape juice....Both were on the table.

wine is also grape juice, just a little more juiced! lol

[Apologette]

wine is also grape juice, just a little more juiced! lol

Grape juice is not wine. Wine is fermented, grape juice is not. The Jews use fermented kosher wine.

[alanmolstad]

I only know what was on the table.
There was strong wine , and non-strong wine...

I was also ***ured that all things on the table were Kosher and had been ordered from some place that apparently Jews use to obtain such things for P***over meals.
Im told that the chicken came with still feathers on the skin..no idea why?:eek:

[alanmolstad]

the main meal was chicken.....

We washed our hands a few times...I remember once after we washed we were told to not speak ....

Also attending that night were the young Jewish club members from the local university ...and so it was great to hear everyone singing it what I guess was Hebrew?

[alanmolstad]

I remember at one time, we dipped a finger in our cup of wine and dropped drops of wine onto the plate for each of the things Moses was doing to Egypt .

I think after the 3rd gl*** of wine I did switch to the non-strong wine...as by then my head was spinning...LOL

In total there were 4 cups of wine that were "official" and part of the service...but after that was over we did each have a bit more wine with the meal....

It was interesting, they do not eat lamb at P***over anymore, however they always have to have a lamb bone on this one plate....

[Libby]

That is interesting, Alan. A lot of symbolism in the Seder meal, I do remember that. I remember bitter herbs and some other things that were not actually eaten, but just there as a symbolic part of their story in Egypt.

[alanmolstad]

we ate them.....as far as I remember, we put the bitter stuff and something else between the crackers.

This came with a story how this actually is the first recorded use of what is a "sandwich"...

[alanmolstad]

However, now that I think about it.......


at our meal there were little plates with different things on them at each chair for each of us....Im not sure how many things, perhaps 4?

However this was not a sader plate.....I asked and it was known by another name.

There was a real sader plate, but it was on the other main table and was held up forall of us to see at times, while a story was told about it and the history of Moses.
I think remember that plate had markings to hold stuff in areas of it.and it was NOT eaten from........

That was a larger plate and it had the lamb bone on it....

i also remember that at one point it was said that the wife of the house had to have cleaned the whole house before the meal, and that the husband needed to confirm this, and even had to find the last crumbs (left always in the same spot by the wife)

I remember that as a non-Jew I could not pour the wine ...but I was allowed to drink it.

I also remember that a type of common wine i had thought was good for p***over was actually not....and so the correct wine had to be ordered before our meal...and it had a marking on it to show where it was from.

[alanmolstad]

One thing I still do not understand about P***over.

At one point I heard people talking about what i think was a 2nd P***over meal?

Im not sure if this was the night before our meal?...or the night after?

[Libby]

All very interesting, Alan.

I wanted to mention (since this is the Sandra Tanner thread) that Part 4 of her interview is out on podcast. Still don't see it on video. This last one was sooooo interesting! She talks about her husband, Jerald, towards the end, and a very interesting and moving experience she had, after his death. By far, this was the best part of the interview.

[Libby]

Here is Part 4. Very much worth a listen.


http://mormonstories.org/sandra-tanner-anti-mormonism-her-christian-beliefs-the-future-of-the-lds-church-and-jeralds-p***ing/

In part 4 of a 4 part series, Sandra Tanner discusses her views on being called an “anti-Mormon,” her Christian beliefs, her views on the recent candor/openness and future of the LDS church, the p***ing of her husband (Jerald — Alzheimer’s), and shares her final testimony.

[GolfingMormon]

It aint the fact the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, it is how it is used to lure innocents to their eternal ****ation.
**** Joseph Smith jr. To Hell for that!

Really! I mean really?? my gosh such harsh judgement, yet I suppose you have read the message or do you just read what the anti sites spew out there ....

[Billyray]

Really! I mean really?? my gosh such harsh judgement, yet I suppose you have read the message or do you just read what the anti sites spew out there ....
I have read the Book of Mormon. Multiple times.

[GolfingMormon]

I have read the Book of Mormon. Multiple times.

I commend you!

[Libby]

I've read it many times, as well. Billy and I are both ex-mormons.

The last time I tried to read it straight through was in 2011. I got to 2 Nephi 3:6-7, where the book predicts the coming of Joseph Smith and the restoration. After recently realizing that Joseph had written himself into the JST Bible, as well as the Book of Mormon, I just felt it was not worth continuing the read. My last holdout was the Book of Mormon, but I was focusing on the things I liked and pretty much ignoring things that didn't seem right. (KJV language, Isaiah p***ages written in KJV, Joseph prophesing of his own coming, animals and elements that were not there in that time frame, Patriotic themes that are very apparent, no evidence for any of these peoples or places)...too much for me to further put off any doubt about this book..

[GolfingMormon]

I've read it many times, as well. Billy and I are both ex-mormons.

I commend both of you! at least you gave it the old college try...

[Libby]

I gave it a lot more than that.

[GolfingMormon]

I gave it a lot more than that.

Than you must have majored in it, what else is there?

[Libby]

Than you must have majored in it, what else is there?

I just meant, I gave it a lot more than just a "read". I read it often, studied it, believed it to be true, lived my life around it for along time.

Saying that someone gave it the "old college try", just didn't seem adequate.

[Libby]

Btw, GM...In Part 1, of Sandra's interview, she talks about her relationship with the Book of Mormon. You might find it interesting.

[GolfingMormon]

Btw, GM...In Part 1, of Sandra's interview, she talks about her relationship with the Book of Mormon. You might find it interesting.

I heard the whole interview, I liked Sandra, she is pleasant...

[RealFakeHair]

I heard the whole interview, I liked Sandra, she is pleasant...

That's the one intelligent thing you had to say.
PS you are going to miss your tee time.

[GolfingMormon]

That's the one intelligent thing you had to say.
PS you are going to miss your tee time.

Do you love being divisive?

[RealFakeHair]

Do you love being divisive?

I just hate liars, and devil worshipers, and all those TBMs who turn a blind eye to Joseph Smith jr. The *****monger.
I hope I didn't leave any ambiguity on the LDSinc. Table!

[GolfingMormon]

I just hate liars, and devil worshipers, and all those TBMs who turn a blind eye to Joseph Smith jr. The *****monger.
I hope I didn't leave any ambiguity on the LDSinc. Table!

I hope you can help me with a decision I need to make fairly soon.... do I put someone who is divisive on ignore or do we see a change in at***ude by said poster who so far has not shown Christian hospitality???
I guess that person can choose! we shall see...

[RealFakeHair]

I hope you can help me with a decision I need to make fairly soon.... do I put someone who is divisive on ignore or do we see a change in at***ude by said poster who so far has not shown Christian hospitality???
I guess that person can choose! we shall see...

It us up to you. However, you may start off by not being a sarcastic-U-know-what, by answering a question when put to you
You may say, " I have no idea what you are talking about, please explain, or give the answer, or go and play a round of golf at putt-putt.

[GolfingMormon]

Thanks for helping me make a great decision....

[RealFakeHair]

Thanks for helping me a great decision....

You're welcome

[Libby]

I heard the whole interview, I liked Sandra, she is pleasant...

She's had an interesting life. Did you get all the way through part 4? She had an amazing experience, after Jerald's death.

[RealFakeHair]

I just meant, I gave it a lot more than just a "read". I read it often, studied it, believed it to be true, lived my life around it for along time.

Saying that someone gave it the "old college try", just didn't seem adequate.

Try giving this one the good ol college try? The original text of Mosiah 21:28 reads:

And now Limhi was again filled with joy, on learning from the mouth of Ammon that king Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings; yea, and Ammon also did rejoice

Not really, just for laughs>

[GolfingMormon]

She's had an interesting life. Did you get all the way through part 4? She had an amazing experience, after Jerald's death.

Not sure about part 4 ... but I will look for it...

[Phoenix]

She's had an interesting life. Did you get all the way through part 4? She had an amazing experience, after Jerald's death.

Did it involve Jerald's ghost visiting her and telling her "Sandra, it turns out we were wrong! LDS doctrines actually ARE closer to the truth than the brand of Protestantism that we subscribed to!" ? :)

[Libby]

Did it involve Jerald's ghost visiting her and telling her "Sandra, it turns out we were wrong! LDS doctrines actually ARE closer to the truth than the brand of Protestantism that we subscribed to!" ? :)

Um...no. ;)

[Phoenix]

Um...no. ;)

Oh, that's too bad, because if that was the amazing experience she had after her husband died, it would be awesome.

[Libby]

Oh, that's too bad, because if that was the amazing experience she had after her husband died, it would be awesome.

Actually, it was much more awesome than that. :)

[Libby]

I just found out that John Dehlin (Mormon Stories creator) and Kate Kelly (founder of "Ordain Women") are both being threatened with excommunication. Both have received a court date.

It may be a blessing in disguise, but I still feel bad for people who are forced out and not really ready to give up on the church. I think it is a much more difficult recovery, than leaving of your own accord. :(

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/us/two-activists-within-mormon-church-threatened-with-excommunication.html?referrer

Go Here for discussion:

http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?3406-John-Dehlin-(Mormon-Stories)-and-Kate-Kelly-(Ordain-Women)-threatened-with-excom&p=159044&viewfull=1#post159044

[Phoenix]

It may be a blessing in disguise, but I still feel bad for people who are forced out and not really ready to give up on the church. I think it is a much more difficult recovery, than leaving of your own accord.

To me, that's like saying that you feel bad for Ed Snowden if the USA takes away his U.S. citizenship when he's not yet really ready to give up on the USA.

[Libby]

To me, that's like saying that you feel bad for Ed Snowden if the USA takes away his U.S. citizenship when he's not yet really ready to give up on the USA.

I don't think he is ready to give up his citizenship. Not that I have heard. Many do not consider him a traitor, either.

John and Kate have been active and, at least, partially believing LDS. I think the church is handling all of this very badly.

[Phoenix]

I don't think he is ready to give up his citizenship. Not that I have heard. Many do not consider him a traitor, either.
Many don't consider Obama a bad President, either, but it's true. Snowden deliberately put the lives of American agents and their families in danger of being captured, tortured, and killed by enemies of the USA. That is called giving aid to the enemy, and is one of the definitions of treason. He can say he had good intentions, but some say that Lucifer had good intentions, too.


John and Kate have been active and, at least, partially believing LDS. I think the church is handling all of this very badly.

It is not surprising that you feel that way, but with all due respect, the only opinions that count in this matter are the opinions of TBMs.

[Libby]

President Obama has been a very good President, IMO. :)


It is not surprising that you feel that way, but with all due respect, the only opinions that count in this matter are the opinions of TBMs.

Well, I'm not so sure about that, as public opinion can effect the church, especially their missionary program. Also, many TBM's are very skeptical that holding court on these two people is a good idea. (I belong to several groups on Facebook that include TBM's, marginal members and some ex-Members). A lot of them are "friends" of John and Kate).

[Phoenix]

President Obama has been a very good President, IMO. :)


I sincerely hope that you're not serious about that. By any rational standard, he is the worst POTUS in the last 100 years, if not the worst ever. He makes Jimmy Carter look like a good president in comparison.

[Libby]

I sincerely hope that you're not serious about that. By any rational standard, he is the worst POTUS in the last 100 years, if not the worst ever. He makes Jimmy Carter look like a good president in comparison.

I have always known that you were conservative, as are most LDS (and conservative Christians), but I don't suppose you've ever known that I am a Democrat (moderate to liberal, depending on the issue). I am dead serious about Obama. Considering the opposition he has experienced in the House, I think he has done a good ***.

[Snow Patrol]

I have always known that you were conservative, as are most LDS (and conservative Christians), but I don't suppose you've ever known that I am a Democrat (moderate to liberal, depending on the issue). I am dead serious about Obama. Considering the opposition he has experienced in the House, I think he has done a good ***.

Yes, the darn House republicans have forced Obama to lie over and over, not be aware of several different scandals until reported in the news, forced the IRS to target conservative groups, cause several international relations blunders and on and on. Yep, let's go back to having Dems in charge of both House and Senate and Executive Branch. That worked so well the first time. :rolleyes:

Oh, and by the way, LDS don't all stick up for each other. I think Harry Reid is one of the most despicable people there are.

[Libby]

Well, so much for the "big tent", I guess.

Harry Reid is not the only Democrat in the LDS Church. I have seen political affiliations and even some of the upper eschalon are Independent or Democrat. Not many, but there are a few. You also have to realize, now that the LDS Church is a global church, there are many, much more liberal, outside of the U.S., as well.

[Snow Patrol]

Well, so much for the "big tent", I guess.

Harry Reid is not the only Democrat in the LDS Church. I have seen political affiliations and even some of the upper eschalon are Independent or Democrat. Not many, but there are a few. You also have to realize, now that the LDS Church is a global church, there are many, much more liberal, outside of the U.S., as well.

I have many friends and some relatives that are Democrats. I have no problem with them and often enjoy political discussion with them. I just think Reid is vile human being. His treatment of others that he disagrees with is despicable.

[Libby]

Well, I don't know him, personally, only his politics (with which I, mostly, agree).

[RealFakeHair]

[QUOTE=Libby;159091]President Obama has been a very good President, IMO. :)



Libby, I think you should go lay down, you must have a fever or something? lol

[Phoenix]

I have always known that you were conservative, as are most LDS (and conservative Christians), but I don't suppose you've ever known that I am a Democrat (moderate to liberal, depending on the issue). I am dead serious about Obama. Considering the opposition he has experienced in the House, I think he has done a good ***.

Even a lot of moderate Democrats are disgusted with the Saul Alinsky Communism he has used to destroy the USA. I listened, in person, to a Democrat U.S. Senator today, who said that Obama's release of 5 Taliban leaders, knowing they had murdered many innocent people, and knowing that some U.S. soldiers had died capturing them, and knowing that now they're free they will kill more U.S. soldiers and maybe do another 9/11 attack on innocent citizens, was so wrong it's incomprehensible that he did it.

At least one psychologist said last week that Obama's actions against the USA are so crazy, he may not be sane.

He just allowed Iraq to be overthrown, and as a result the price of gasoline is predicted to go a LOT higher than it currently is. When he took over the White House, gas was about $2 a gallon. My family now pays about $2000 PER YEAR more than it did before the savior took over the White House. Plus the cost of everything that uses fuel, or is transported by truck, has increased up to 100% doubled as well: Propane or gas for heating your home in the winter, or for cooking all year long. The cost of milk at the store is around $4 a gallon, just like gasoline. PLUS.......

[Phoenix]

1. IRS targets Obama’s enemies: The IRS targeted conservative and pro-Israel groups prior to the 2012 election. Questions are being raised about why this occurred, who ordered it, whether there was any White House involvement and whether there was an initial effort to hide who knew about the targeting and when.

2. Benghazi: This is actually three scandals in one:

The failure of administration to protect the Benghazi mission.
The changes made to the talking points in order to suggest the attack was motivated by an anti-Muslim video
The refusal of the White House to say what President Obama did the night of the attack

3. Watching the AP: The Justice Department performed a m***ive cull of ***ociated Press reporters’ phone records as part of a leak investigation.

4. Rosengate: The Justice Department suggested that Fox News reporter James Rosen is a criminal for reporting about cl***ified information and subsequently monitored his phones and emails.

5. Potential Holder perjury I: Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress he had never been ***ociated with “potential prosecution” of a journalist for perjury when in fact he signed the affidavit that termed Rosen a potential criminal.

6. The ATF “Fast and Furious” scheme: Allowed weapons from the U.S. to “walk” across the border into the hands of Mexican drug dealers. The ATF lost track of hundreds of firearms, many of which were used in crimes, including the December 2010 killing of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

7. Potential Holder Perjury II: Holder told Congress in May 2011 that he had just recently heard about the Fast and Furious gun walking scheme when there is evidence he may have known much earlier.

8. Sebelius demands payment: HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius solicited donations from companies HHS might regulate. The money would be used to help her sign up uninsured Americans for ObamaCare.

9. The Pigford scandal: An Agriculture Department effort that started as an attempt to compensate black farmers who had been discriminated against by the agency but evolved into a gravy train delivering several billion dollars in cash to thousands of additional minority and female farmers who probably didn’t face discrimination.

10. GSA gone wild: The General Services Administration in 2010 held an $823,000 training conference in Las Vegas, featuring a clown and a mind readers. Resulted in the resignation of the GSA administrator.

11. Veterans Affairs in Disney World: The agency wasted more than $6 million on two conferences in Orlando. An ***istant secretary was fired.

12. Sebelius violates the Hatch Act: A U.S. special counsel determined that Sebelius violated the Hatch Act when she made “extemporaneous partisan remarks” during a speech in her official capacity last year. During the remarks, Sebelius called for the election of the Democratic candidate for governor of North Carolina.

13. Solyndra: Republicans charged the Obama administration funded and promoted its poster boy for green energy despite warning signs the company was headed for bankruptcy. The administration also allegedly pressed Solyndra to delay layoff announcements until after the 2010 midterm elections.

14. AKA Lisa Jackson: Former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson used the name “Richard Windsor” when corresponding by email with other government officials, drawing charges she was trying to evade scrutiny.

15. The New Black Panthers: The Justice Department was accused of using a racial double standard in failing to pursue a voter intimidation case against Black Panthers who appeared to be menacing voters at a polling place in 2008 in Philadelphia.

16. Waging war all by myself: Obama may have violated the Cons***ution and both the letter and the spirit of the War Powers Resolution by attacking Libya without Congressional approval.

17. Biden bullies the press: Vice President Biden’s office has repeatedly interfered with coverage, including forcing a reporter to wait in a closet, making a reporter delete photos, and editing pool reports.

18. AKPD not A-OK: The administration paid millions to the former firm of then-White House adviser David Axelrod, AKPD Message and Media, to promote p***age of Obamacare. Some questioned whether the firm was hired to help pay Axelrod $2 million AKPD owed him.

19. Sestak, we’ll take care of you: Former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel used Bill Clinton as an intermediary to probe whether former Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) would accept a prominent, unpaid White House advisory position in exchange for dropping out of the 2010 primary against former Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.).

20. I’ll p*** my own laws: Obama has repeatedly been accused of making end runs around Congress by deciding which laws to enforce, including the decision not to deport illegal immigrants who may have been allowed to stay in the United States had Congress p***ed the “Dream Act.”

21. The hacking of Sharyl Attkisson’s computer: It’s not clear who hacked the CBS reporter’s computer as she investigated the Benghazi scandal, but the Obama administration and its allies had both the motive and the means to do it.

22. An American Political Prisoner: The sudden decision to arrest Nakoula B***eley Nakoula on unrelated charges after protests in the Arab world over his anti-Muslim video is an extraordinarily suspicious coincidence. “We’re going to go out and we’re going to prosecute the person that made that video,” Hillary Clinton allegedly told the father of one of the ex-SEALs killed in Banghazi.

23. Get rid of inconvenient IGs: Corporation for National and Community Service Inspector General Gerald Walpin was fired in 2009 as he fought wasteful spending and investigated a friend of Obama’s, Sacramento Mayor and former NBA player Kevin Johnson. The White House says Walpin was incompetent.

24. Influence peddling: An investigation is underway of Alejandro Mayorkas, director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, who has been nominated by Obama for the number two post at the Department of Homeland Security. Mayorkas may have used his position to unfairly obtain U.S. visas for foreign investors in company run by Hillary Clinton’s brother, Anthony Rodman.

(http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/08/01/obama-dozen-scandals-counting/)

[Libby]

[QUOTE=Libby;159091]President Obama has been a very good President, IMO. :)



Libby, I think you should go lay down, you must have a fever or something? lol

I definitely need an aspirin after reading Phoenix's last two post. ;-)

[Libby]

Phoenix, I am not going to argue politics here. I do that on other boards and sometimes on Facebook, but like a lot of these religious "discussions" they are somewhat futile. It saddens me that the Republican Party has gone so far to the right. It's scares me, just like you seem to be frightened of Obama.

I think we all need to stop listening to so much media **** and try and here the truth, for a change. Some of the characterizations of the leaders on both sides are insulting and do nothing but divide this country (which is not good).

[Phoenix]

It saddens me that the Republican Party has gone so far to the right.
You have been deceived, just as the liberals want the nation to be deceived. Study the history of both parties, from the JFK era to today, and you will see that the Democrats of that era, if you went back in time and listened to them, were what you'd today call right-wingers. BOTH parties have gotten demonstratively more LIBERAL over the past 60 years. If JFK were running for POTUS in the last Democratic primary against Obama, JFK's policies would have been branded staunchly conservative, and therefore there is no way that he would have beaten Obama. Would he have supported ANYTHING that today's DNC has been proposing and supporting? I doubt it. He'd be shocked by how far left his party has gone. He'd be among the first to demand the impeachment of Obama today, or of Bill Clinton in the 1990s, for any number of laws they have broken.

Meanwhile, all you have to do is go back to the Reagan years to see that today's GOP would not have liked Reagan--they would criticize Reagan's fiscal, national defense, and border enforcement policies as being too right-wing. They'd probably call him a TEA Party supporter and a loony for his views on traditional family values and his desire to put limits on going into national debt and to stop wasting so much money on stupid programs.

All this is proof that both parties have gone to the left, NOT the right. The only politicians today who share the conservatism of former generations, are the tiny minority that get mocked for being out of touch with the times.


It's scares me, just like you seem to be frightened of Obama.
Obama has wrecked this country. He has put it into more debt than all other presidents put together. He has committed treasonous acts. He has gotten good people killed, and he hasn't even apologized for it, let alone gone to jail for it. He promised that he would change this country in a huge way. The mistake that those who voted for him made, was to believe that those changes would be good ones instead of bad ones.

Even objective groups such as the CBO and GAO show that he has been terrible for this country.

[Libby]

Needless to say, we will disagree.

[Phoenix]

Needless to say, we will disagree.

Do we really disagree over whether Obama didn't lift a finger to save the Benghazi victims? He won't even let us know what he was doing at the time the consulate was being attacked by artillery. My guess: He was golfing or doing something even less moral than that at the time, and he will never admit to what he was doing when he should have been ordering immediate support and evac for those people. Either that, or it was his plan to let them die for some secret reason.

[RealFakeHair]

Do we really disagree over whether Obama didn't lift a finger to save the Benghazi victims? He won't even let us know what he was doing at the time the consulate was being attacked by artillery. My guess: He was golfing or doing something even less moral than that at the time, and he will never admit to what he was doing when he should have been ordering immediate support and evac for those people. Either that, or it was his plan to let them die for some secret reason.
Funny, how you can see throught Obama, and yet overlook Joseph Smith jr. over the top unmoral actions!

[Phoenix]

Funny, how you can see throught Obama, and yet overlook Joseph Smith jr. over the top unmoral actions!

It doesn't seem funny to me. In the case of Obama, there is definitive evidence, while in the case of Joseph Smith, there is mostly questionable hearsay against him, like an anti-Bible person could dredge up to slander Bible prophets or even Jesus.

That is the difference, as I see it: Where people have bad-mouthed certain LDS or Bible people, the source is questionable and even controverted by other sources, while in the case of Obama, the evidence is solid, and even his defenders tend to recognize that and just say "So what?" in reply.

[RealFakeHair]

I doesn't seem funny to me. In the case of Obama, there is definitive evidence, while in the case of Joseph Smith, there is mostly questionable hearsay against him, like an anti-Bible person could dredge up to slander Bible prophets or even Jesus.

That is the difference, as I see it: Where people have bad-mouthed certain LDS or Bible people, the source is questionable and even controverted by other sources, while in the case of Obama, the evidence is solid, and even his defenders tend to recognize that and just say "So what?" in reply.

Let's take one so called hearsay that was proved against good ol jo.
"The noted Mormon apologist Hugh Nibley published a book in which this statement appeared: "...if this court record is authentic it is the most ****ing evidence in existence against Joseph Smith." (The Myth Makers, 1961, page 142) On the same page we read that such a court record would be "the most devastating **** to Smith ever delivered." Because he could see the serious implications of the matter, Dr. Nibley tried in every way possible to destroy the idea that the court record was an authentic document

[Libby]

I doesn't seem funny to me. In the case of Obama, there is definitive evidence, while in the case of Joseph Smith, there is mostly questionable hearsay against him, like an anti-Bible person could dredge up to slander Bible prophets or even Jesus.

That is the difference, as I see it: Where people have bad-mouthed certain LDS or Bible people, the source is questionable and even controverted by other sources, while in the case of Obama, the evidence is solid, and even his defenders tend to recognize that and just say "So what?" in reply.

Actually, there is solid evidence that Joseph did most of the things that people claim. Even your own LDS scholars admit to most of it. They have even written books, like "Rough Stone Rolling".

As for Obama, just the opposite. The Fox News crowd are some of the least informed people in America, and people who hate Obama are going to eat it up, no matter how untrue it is.

This is why I rarely discuss politics, especially, with conservatives, because it is made up, mostly, of a bunch of mud-slinging propaganda.

Okay, I'm done! :)

[Phoenix]

Let's take one so called hearsay that was proved against good ol jo.
"The noted Mormon apologist Hugh Nibley published a book in which this statement appeared: "...if this court record is authentic it is the most ****ing evidence in existence against Joseph Smith." (The Myth Makers, 1961, page 142) On the same page we read that such a court record would be "the most devastating **** to Smith ever delivered." Because he could see the serious implications of the matter, Dr. Nibley tried in every way possible to destroy the idea that the court record was an authentic document

He cited all the evidence that was available at the time, and apparently some evidence was discovered after that. I agree with Nibley's initial ***essment, by the way: This court trial IS indeed evidence of the worst documentable thing that that Joseph Smith did.

Which puts Smith in a pretty good light. It's like if you were slandering me with various accusations of atrocities, PLUS the claim that I once was convicted of misdemeanor loitering, or littering. And then one of my friends said that if it ever was proven that I was in fact convicted of that misdemeanor, it would be the most ****ing evidence against me.

I'd be happy with that. :)

[Libby]

He cited all the evidence that was available at the time, and apparently some evidence was discovered after that. I agree with Nibley's initial ***essment, by the way: This court trial IS indeed evidence of the worst documentable thing that that Joseph Smith did.

Which puts Smith in a pretty good light. It's like if you were slandering me with various accusations of atrocities, PLUS the claim that I once was convicted of misdemeanor loitering, or littering. And then one of my friends said that if it ever was proven that I was in fact convicted of that misdemeanor, it would be the most ****ing evidence against me.

I'd be happy with that. :)

Yeah, because I think his polygamy with young girls was the most ****able thing he did. That was seriously awful, IMHO.

[Phoenix]

Actually, there is solid evidence that Joseph did most of the things that people claim.
That is not true. Let's take, for example, the claim that he carried a Jupiter talisman with him everywhere he went, he was never without it, and he even died with it, and it was found among the belongings on his person after he died.

There is NO solid evidence that this claim is true. I think even Quinn has been forced to admit that.


As for Obama, just the opposite. The Fox News crowd are some of the least informed people in America, and people who hate Obama are going to eat it up, no matter how untrue it is.
This is interesting: You believe every bad thing said about Smith, and you deny every bad thing said about Obama.

[Libby]

That is not true. Let's take, for example, the claim that he carried a Jupiter talisman with him everywhere he went, he was never without it, and he even died with it, and it was found among the belongings on his person after he died.

There is NO solid evidence that this claim is true. I think even Quinn has been forced to admit that.

I really could care less if he wore a talisman or dabbled in the occult. Those are not, by far, his worst offenses (as I mentioned).



This is interesting: You believe every bad thing said about Smith, and you deny every bad thing said about Obama.

Nope, I've seen some claims from antis that I knew were wrong and I've even spoken against them....like the whole idea of literal/physical procreation in the CK. I know that is not how it's interpreted or viewed by most LDS.

[Libby]

I get accused of pandering, when I agree with or defend LDS...remember?

[Libby]

Btw, Phoenix, have you seen the news today?!

Benghazi suspects have been apprehended! Obama always gets his man! ;-)

[RealFakeHair]

Btw, Phoenix, have you seen the news today?!

Benghazi suspects have been apprehended! Obama always gets his man! ;-)
Why did you go and make me sick?

[RealFakeHair]

He cited all the evidence that was available at the time, and apparently some evidence was discovered after that. I agree with Nibley's initial ***essment, by the way: This court trial IS indeed evidence of the worst documentable thing that that Joseph Smith did.

Which puts Smith in a pretty good light. It's like if you were slandering me with various accusations of atrocities, PLUS the claim that I once was convicted of misdemeanor loitering, or littering. And then one of my friends said that if it ever was proven that I was in fact convicted of that misdemeanor, it would be the most ****ing evidence against me.

I'd be happy with that. :)

Okay, lets see, Joseph Smith jr. Went to court why?

[Libby]

Why did you go and make me sick?

You should be happy!

[Phoenix]

I really could care less if he wore a talisman or dabbled in the occult.
But you said that "there is solid evidence that Joseph did most of the things that people claim."
I just mentioned one of those claims, and suggested that there is no solid evidence to support it (actually, there is solid evidence that refutes it) and now you're turning into Hillary when questioned about Benghazi ("What difference does it make?") :)


Those are not, by far, his worst offenses (as I mentioned).
Didn't you agree with the Nibley statement that if evidence was ever found of Smith being tried and convicted of "gl***-looking" it would be the most ****ing evidence against him?



Nope, I've seen some claims from antis that I knew were wrong and I've even spoken against them....like the whole idea of literal/physical procreation in the CK. I know that is not how it's interpreted or viewed by most LDS.
Thanks for that.

[RealFakeHair]

But you said that "there is solid evidence that Joseph did most of the things that people claim."
I just mentioned one of those claims, and suggested that there is no solid evidence to support it (actually, there is solid evidence that refutes it) and now you're turning into Hillary when questioned about Benghazi ("What difference does it make?") :)


Didn't you agree with the Nibley statement that if evidence was ever found of Smith being tried and convicted of "gl***-looking" it would be the most ****ing evidence against him?



Thanks for that.

Bait and switch. No Christian here mentions, Jupiter talisman of Joseph Smith jr. that I know of, Now back to the looking gl***?

[alanmolstad]

Actually, there is solid evidence that Joseph did most of the things that people claim.

That is so true!

The things we have seen documented are enough to know what type of a real low-life guy he was...

Some people just need shooting....as did old horny Joe Smith if you ask me.

[Phoenix]

Bait and switch. No Christian here mentions, Jupiter talisman of Joseph Smith jr. that I know of,

One anti-Joseph Smith person claimed that there is solid evidence that Joseph did most of the things that people claim.

In order to back that up, you will need to list ALL the accusations that people have been making against him, and then prove that the evidence supporting MOST of those accusations is solid.

Are you up to that task? Perhaps you don't really think it would be easy......and I would agree with you on that.

Some accusers are all talk, and little to no substance when they are asked to back up their claims.

[Phoenix]

That is so true!
If you really thought so, perhaps you'd be inclined to back it up with solid evidence.


The things we have seen documented are enough to know what type of a real low-life guy he was...
Some people just need shooting....as did old horny Joe Smith if you ask me.

I bet people could be induced to make similar accusations against you.

[alanmolstad]

If you really thought so, perhaps you'd be inclined to back it up with solid evidence.



I bet people could be induced to make similar accusations against you.Im thinking mostly of the skirts.....

and if you need to do basic homework on the Mormons, I suggest Walter Martin's book, THE KINGDOM OF THE CULTS for a start....and also the MAZE OF MORMONISM as well....

You will learn a lot, and be able to take pride in knowing your money went to a good cause.

[alanmolstad]

Bait and switch. No Christian here mentions, Jupiter talisman of Joseph Smith jr. that I know of, Now back to the looking gl***?Joe used some type of magic stone or something like that I think.

I remember reading someplace that he had a stone that he carried......I think I saw a photo of it, but I willhave to look that up again on GOOGLE.

Im not sure he kept it in a hat however...LOL

[alanmolstad]

Yeah, because I think his polygamy with young girls was the most ****able thing he did. That was seriously awful, IMHO.
I think that the truth is that Mormonism was founded on the idea of cheating on your wife....

When I see Mormons, and stuff about the Mormon temple, I think its all about sex with other girls....thats basicly what im seeing being the goal....

[RealFakeHair]

I think that the truth is that Mormonism was founded on the idea of cheating on your wife....

When I see Mormons, and stuff about the Mormon temple, I think its all about sex with other girls....thats basicly what im seeing being the goal....
I have told the story of the black lady who came into my book store and wanted to buy a book of Mormon and the book of Doctrine by Brice R McConkie. I told her I could order to McConkie book but she could get a book of Mormon free from any missionary. She replied by telling me she wanted to buy both books because she wanted no outside influence from a missionary or Christian.
The rest of the story is long, but to cut to the chase. It was all about a older back man who wanted to take her to the LDS temple and have her seal to him, and later on some hanky panky

[Phoenix]

Im thinking mostly of the skirts.......

Antis seem to think about skirts a lot.

[Libby]

But you said that "there is solid evidence that Joseph did most of the things that people claim."
I just mentioned one of those claims, and suggested that there is no solid evidence to support it (actually, there is solid evidence that refutes it) and now you're turning into Hillary when questioned about Benghazi ("What difference does it make?") :)

Oh, now you're really gonna tick me off, if you start in on Hillary! ;-)

I'm sure most Christians believe Joseph Smith's "occult" activities (if there were any) preclude him from being a prophet, but the biggies for me were, #1 polygamy, #2 Book of Mormon as an authentic antiquity, and #3 all of the rest of his "translations" and restorationist ideas, that have no foundation in reality, and thus make the church simply "not true".



Didn't you agree with the Nibley statement that if evidence was ever found of Smith being tried and convicted of "gl***-looking" it would be the most ****ing evidence against him?


No.



Thanks for that.

I try to be honest and real. I'm not perfect and I don't know everything (not even about Mormonism ;-) ).. I do see some errors posted, about the church, at times...or some things that may be "basically" true, but get sensationalized and ****n out of proportion.

But, the things that took me out of the church were important enough to warrant that extreme action, and they were things which have enough evidence, IMO, to be taken very seriously.

[Libby]

I think that the truth is that Mormonism was founded on the idea of cheating on your wife....

When I see Mormons, and stuff about the Mormon temple, I think its all about sex with other girls....thats basicly what im seeing being the goal....

You know, the Temple really has nothing to do with sex. People do get married there, but they are covered from head to toe, including a veil on the woman, so no sex going on there! :) (I used to escort wedding parties to the sealing room, so I got to see a lot of weddings/sealings).

Most other ordinances have to do with...Christ...as the LDS perceive him.

[alanmolstad]

its the whole thing...the whole idea that Smith was into...

Smith came up with all kinds of reasons to allow him to cheat on his wife, and other Mormons over the years have also got swept up into this same idea of chasing skirts...

From my POV the Mormon temple is just another way to push this same idea....except its about doing the same dirt in the after-life tha'ts all....

But it's the same idea.

One of the questions I have been thinking of has to do with the mind-set of people in CULTS when they look around the world.
An example , when I would talk to my co-worker who is in the JWs he has confessed to be always looking at the bigger houses in the city that he might want to move into one day.
For according to JW teachings, the average JW does not go to Heaven, but rather is bound to the earth, but also according to him he will get his "pick" of all the homes left by the lost.

So he told me that sometimes he drives around with his wife and kids and shows them different houses that he asks if the kids would like to live there in the future?

In like manner, I have always questioned if Mormon men who work hard to get all their Temple stuff correct so that in the after life they get to have many wives, might also look at the women they know and think to themselves..."I will have her as a wife too"???

Im not sure, but if Smith was known to take the wife of another man, or younger and younger girls, that this might also be something that a Mormon man might not also think about doing ...now or in the after-life?.....

[RealFakeHair]

You know, the Temple really has nothing to do with sex. People do get married there, but they are covered from head to toe, including a veil on the woman, so no sex going on there! :) (I used to escort wedding parties to the sealing room, so I got to see a lot of weddings/sealings).

Most other ordinances have to do with...Christ...as the LDS perceive him.
OH, it has to do with sex alright. There are things going on in secret that we'll never know. I came across the spiritual sealing by accident. It is a sly way of getting under the skirts of someone other than your wife.

[Phoenix]

You know, the Temple really has nothing to do with sex. People do get married there, but they are covered from head to toe, including a veil on the woman, so no sex going on there! :) (I used to escort wedding parties to the sealing room, so I got to see a lot of weddings/sealings).
Most other ordinances have to do with...Christ...as the LDS perceive him.

Thank you for telling the truth to him about this. You may find, however, that he doesn't believe you.




Welcome to our world.

[Phoenix]

OH, it has to do with sex alright. There are things going on in secret that we'll never know.

Do you see the Catch 22 that such paranoia can lead you to?

"I will never know about the evil stuff that they're secretly, doing....which is proof that they are doing it. So I will go around accusing them of doing it, because I have no way of knowing they're doing it."

"Cuckoo, cuckoo..."

[RealFakeHair]

Do you see the Catch 22 that such paranoia can lead you to?

"I will never know about the evil stuff that they're secretly, doing....which is proof that they are doing it. So I will go around accusing them of doing it, because I have no way of knowing they're doing it."

"Cuckoo, cuckoo..."

We all hear rumors of all kinds about religious leaders of all strips. Having worked in and around the religious entertainment business, and different organizations from Catholic to main stream religions, and even mormonism.
Here is one for you, it was when I stepped into the Florida Boys, touring bus. I was shocked to see a bottle of Jim Beam on the table, and the old guy who wore the red sox offered my father a drink. I was very young at the time, but soon realized what you see on stage aint always what you see behind the stage. That goes for all walks of life.

[Libby]

We all hear rumors of all kinds about religious leaders of all strips. Having worked in and around the religious entertainment business, and different organizations from Catholic to main stream religions, and even mormonism.
Here is one for you, it was when I stepped into the Florida Boys, touring bus. I was shocked to see a bottle of Jim Beam on the table, and the old guy who wore the red sox offered my father a drink. I was very young at the time, but soon realized what you see on stage aint always what you see behind the stage. That goes for all walks of life.

I'm sure that's very often true, especially in the entertainment business, but I've also had first hand experience of the LDS Temple (and you have not). My experience was not just as a participate, but as a Temple worker (in the L.A. Temple). I worked there as a receptionist (the ***le is a bit misleading), because my duties were varied and took me all over that very large Temple. I saw ever nook and cranny. I worked a 4 hour shift twice a week, doing things like playing guide for people coming into the baptistry, for wedding parties, for parents and children who came to be sealed to one another, as families. Guides were necessary, because this Temple is huge and it's very easy to lose your way. Sometimes I was stationed at the reception desk (with a priesthood holder) to greet people coming and going. I worked in the President's office, bundling the prayer requests and taking care of any other clerical needs. I even worked the cafeteria, at times! :) Anyway, I saw all and I know what goes on there, daily. It's really quite boring, compared to what some people "think" goes on there. :)

[Libby]

its the whole thing...the whole idea that Smith was into...

Smith came up with all kinds of reasons to allow him to cheat on his wife, and other Mormons over the years have also got swept up into this same idea of chasing skirts...

From my POV the Mormon temple is just another way to push this same idea....except its about doing the same dirt in the after-life tha'ts all....

But it's the same idea.

One of the questions I have been thinking of has to do with the mind-set of people in CULTS when they look around the world.
An example , when I would talk to my co-worker who is in the JWs he has confessed to be always looking at the bigger houses in the city that he might want to move into one day.
For according to JW teachings, the average JW does not go to Heaven, but rather is bound to the earth, but also according to him he will get his "pick" of all the homes left by the lost.

So he told me that sometimes he drives around with his wife and kids and shows them different houses that he asks if the kids would like to live there in the future?

In like manner, I have always questioned if Mormon men who work hard to get all their Temple stuff correct so that in the after life they get to have many wives, might also look at the women they know and think to themselves..."I will have her as a wife too"???

Im not sure, but if Smith was known to take the wife of another man, or younger and younger girls, that this might also be something that a Mormon man might not also think about doing ...now or in the after-life?.....

I don't think you can judge based on what Joseph Smith did. Most of the LDS men I have ever known don't really even want to practice polygamy. I think the women were actually more open to it than the men (that I knew). Can you imagine actually living with more than one woman? I think that could be quite hairy. :D

Joseph didn't live with all of his wives, so he got benefits without a lot of h***le. Brigham DID live with many of them, although, not all, and I have read some very funny things about some of his experiences. At one point, he was so frustrated that he threatened to divorce all of them! :) So, what may sound like a great idea, in theory, wasn't as "cool", in reality, as it might sound.

[RealFakeHair]

I'm sure that's very often true, especially in the entertainment business, but I've also had first hand experience of the LDS Temple (and you have not). My experience was not just as a participate, but as a Temple worker (in the L.A. Temple). I worked there as a receptionist (the ***le is a bit misleading), because my duties were varied and took me all over that very large Temple. I saw ever nook and cranny. I worked a 4 hour shift twice a week, doing things like playing guide for people coming into the baptistry, for wedding parties, for parents and children who came to be sealed to one another, as families. Guides were necessary, because this Temple is huge and it's very easy to lose your way. Sometimes I was stationed at the reception desk (with a priesthood holder) to greet people coming and going. I worked in the President's office, bundling the prayer requests and taking care of any other clerical needs. I even worked the cafeteria, at times! :) Anyway, I saw all and I know what goes on there, daily. It's really quite boring, compared to what some people "think" goes on there. :)

OH, but I did have (first hand experience) of the secret sealing that takes place in the temple. Remember LDSinc. is a man's world. It is totally control by men.
The secret sealing of women to a priest holder male who are not related is done in the temple.
Like i said, it is just another way for a man to convince a woman he is not married to, to have sex.

[Libby]

OH, but I did have (first hand experience) of the secret sealing that takes place in the temple. Remember LDSinc. is a man's world. It is totally control by men.
The secret sealing of women to a priest holder male who are not related is done in the temple.
Like i said, it is just another way for a man to convince a woman he is not married to, to have sex.

How is it that you (a non-LDS) had first hand experience of a "secret sealing"?

[RealFakeHair]

How is it that you (a non-LDS) had first hand experience of a "secret sealing"?

Like I said, the young woman who was approached by the older priest holder to have her sealed to him in a spiritual wedding at the temple was for the sol purpose of eventually having sex. It goes like this, spiritually sealing, ie spiritually married here on earth, but then after seeing the benefit of this arraignment, hey lets go ahead and consummate the deal.
The young lady who came into my book store to order the two mormon books said she thought it would only take a few minutes, but two hours later left the store crying.
She told me later that she wasn't even thinking about coming into the store, but said something told her to turn around and come in.

[Phoenix]

We all hear rumors of all kinds about religious leaders of all strips. Having worked in and around the religious entertainment business, and different organizations from Catholic to main stream religions, and even mormonism.
Here is one for you, it was when I stepped into the Florida Boys, touring bus. I was shocked to see a bottle of Jim Beam on the table, and the old guy who wore the red sox offered my father a drink. I was very young at the time, but soon realized what you see on stage aint always what you see behind the stage. That goes for all walks of life.

No one here is saying that there aren't a lot of rumors. Some of them probably are based on actual facts. The temptation you need to resist, however, is the temptation to ***ume that the more shocking a rumor is, the likelier it is to be true. In my experience, it's the opposite. I have heard some really horrid rumors about other churches and famous people, and more often than not, the most outrageous ones weren't true. Such as the Richard Gere gerbil rumor. Or rumors about satanic rituals being done by the Catholic church or the Masons. I don't think Jesus wants us to believe and maliciously spread scurrilous gossip about other people and groups.

[RealFakeHair]

No one here is saying that there aren't a lot of rumors. Some of them probably are based on actual facts. The temptation you need to resist, however, is the temptation to ***ume that the more shocking a rumor is, the likelier it is to be true. In my experience, it's the opposite. I have heard some really horrid rumors about other churches and famous people, and more often than not, the most outrageous ones weren't true. Such as the Richard Gere gerbil rumor. Or rumors about satanic rituals being done by the Catholic church or the Masons. I don't think Jesus wants us to believe and maliciously spread scurrilous gossip about other people and groups.

Your are correct Jesus of the Holy bible doesn't want us chasing after rumors, but on the other hand He doesn't want us putting our heads in the sand either.
What, you mean the story about Richard Gere, aint true? I am shocked! lol

[Phoenix]

Your are correct Jesus of the Holy bible doesn't want us chasing after rumors, but on the other hand He doesn't want us putting our heads in the sand either.
What, you mean the story about Richard Gere, aint true? I am shocked! lol

Reportedly, Stallone (I think it was) jokingly started it when he was mad at Gere for something.

Which actually teaches a great lesson: It is possible for someone to start a false, slanderous rumor about someone, and for that rumor to end up, years later, being believed by thousands of people.

Now think about that the next time you slander Joseph Smith because of some rumor that some hater said about him 180 years ago.

[RealFakeHair]

Reportedly, Stallone (I think it was) jokingly started it when he was mad at Gere for something.

Which actually teaches a great lesson: It is possible for someone to start a false, slanderous rumor about someone, and for that rumor to end up, years later, being believed by thousands of people.

Now think about that the next time you slander Joseph Smith because of some rumor that some hater said about him 180 years ago.

Richard Gere, kind of reminds me of Tom Cruise, both are a little full of themself's and are easy targets by other actors and comedians. Remember the South Park guys, they did the same to Tom with the gerbils, that was funny too.

[alanmolstad]

I came across the spiritual sealing by accident. It is a sly way of getting under the skirts of someone other than your wife.I would like to hear more about this "spiritual sealing"

[alanmolstad]

I think the women were actually more open to it than the men (that I knew). .
?.....whats going on there?

[alanmolstad]

It was all about a older back man who wanted to take her to the LDS temple and have her seal to him, and later on some hanky pankyso a Mormon man can have a girl "sealed" to himself?....what does this mean?....can she be married?

[alanmolstad]

\
Like i said, it is just another way for a man to convince a woman he is not married to, to have sex.Im really getting that too....the whole religion seems to be aimed at the pursuit of strange skirts...

[RealFakeHair]

Antis seem to think about skirts a lot.
What you don't like skirts?

[RealFakeHair]

I would like to hear more about this "spiritual sealing"

Out in the open it is a way for a non married, or a LDSinc. Married woman who's husband either is non mormon or doesn't have a temple recommend. When she is sealed it is her ticket to the Celestial Kingdom. Innocent enough on the surface, but as many things that came out of the imaginary mind of Joseph Smith jr. It ends up in hanky-panky.

[Libby]

so a Mormon man can have a girl "sealed" to himself?....what does this mean?....can she be married?

Alan, don't get your information from RFH. He is talking about something that went on in the very beginnings of the church. That is not happening now. A marriage sealing is just that...an actual marriage between one man and one woman. Children can also be sealed to their parents, when they are not "born in the covenant". If your parents were sealed in the Temple, before you were born, then you are automatically sealed to them. If they came in after you were born, they must go through a sealing ceremony.

Mormon women (at least to my knowledge!) cannot just be sealed to any LDS man, if her husband is non-LDS. My husband was non-LDS and there were no offers from any Mormon man to seal me to him! lol What they usually do is seal the non-member to their wife or husband, after they are deceased. I had a good friend who did this, after her "non-member" husband p***ed.

[John T]

What you don't like skirts?

In Scotland, we wear kilts!

[alanmolstad]

......, but as many things that came out of the imaginary mind of Joseph Smith jr. It ends up in hanky-panky.
Seems that in the end, the chance for a bit of "hanky-panky" is the real reason behind it all....

[alanmolstad]

there was that posted letter that was claimed to be between old Joe and some chick who he was "seeing" on the side.

In this letter we see Joe asking her to stop-on-by once his wife is out of the house(hint-hint).......

But I never had it confirmed it was truly something the Joe wrote?....

[RealFakeHair]

Alan, don't get your information from RFH. He is talking about something that went on in the very beginnings of the church. That is not happening now. A marriage sealing is just that...an actual marriage between one man and one woman. Children can also be sealed to their parents, when they are not "born in the covenant". If your parents were sealed in the Temple, before you were born, then you are automatically sealed to them. If they came in after you were born, they must go through a sealing ceremony.

Mormon women (at least to my knowledge!) cannot just be sealed to any LDS man, if her husband is non-LDS. My husband was non-LDS and there were no offers from any Mormon man to seal me to him! lol What they usually do is seal the non-member to their wife or husband, after they are deceased. I had a good friend who did this, after her "non-member" husband p***ed.

What, Are you tryin to hurt my feelins?

[RealFakeHair]

there was that posted letter that was claimed to be between old Joe and some chick who he was "seeing" on the side.

In this letter we see Joe asking her to stop-on-by once his wife is out of the house(hint-hint).......

But I never had it confirmed it was truly something the Joe wrote?....
Ol, jo gave one revelation he wish he could take back. The one about keeping all records written down, even in a hanky-panky letter. lol

[Phoenix]

Ol, jo gave one revelation he wish he could take back. The one about keeping all records written down, even in a hanky-panky letter. lol
I wonder if the day will come when you will wish the stuff you have been posting would be deleted.

[RealFakeHair]

I wonder if the day will come when you will wish the stuff you have been posting would be deleted.

Never, never, and never!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[alanmolstad]

Ol, jo gave one revelation he wish he could take back. The one about keeping all records written down, even in a hanky-panky letter. lol

So the Hanky-Panky letter is actually old Joe's?....this is confirmed?....

I need to know this as the letter is a topic that might come up in my life related to a friend of a friend who is going with us to dinner....

[RealFakeHair]

So the Hanky-Panky letter is actually old Joe's?....this is confirmed?....

I need to know this as the letter is a topic that might come up in my life related to a friend of a friend who is going with us to dinner....
Take a gander at this one......“ . . . Smith invited Nancy Rigdon, nineteen-year-old daughter of his close friend and counselor, Sidney Rigdon, to meet him at the home of Orson Hyde. Upon her arrival Smith greeted her, ushered her into a private room, then locked the door. After swearing her to secrecy, wrote George W. Robinson, Smith announced his 'affection for her for several years, and wished that she should be his . . . the Lord was well pleased with this matter . . .here was no sin in it whatever . . .but, if she had any scruples of conscience about the matter, he would marry her privately.'

“Incredulous, Nancy countered that 'if she ever got married she would marry a single man or none at all.' Grabbing her bonnet, she ordered the door opened or she would 'raise the neighbors.' She then stormed out of the Hyde-Richards residence.

“The next day, Smith wrote Nancy a letter, where he justified his advances, saying 'That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another . . . . Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. . . . even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation.' This is his first written statement of theocratic ethics.”

(“Official History of the Church,” vol. 5, p. 134-36; and Van Wagoner, “Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait in Religious Excess,” p. 295; cited in ibid

[Libby]

What, Are you tryin to hurt my feelins?

I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings? :)

There is enough bad stuff in Mormonism (like the thing you just posted, which makes me cringe) without having to make stuff up. Not everything that gets circulated about Mormonism is true. Critics lose credibility, when they believe and perpetuate every little piece of gossip

[RealFakeHair]

I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings? :)

There is enough bad stuff in Mormonism (like the thing you just posted, which makes me cringe) without having to make stuff up. Not everything that gets circulated about Mormonism is true. Critics lose credibility, when they believe and perpetuate every little piece of gossip
Define gossip (Gossip is idle talk or rumor, especially about personal or private affairs of others.)

From time to time we all go off the reservation, but in which direction?

[alanmolstad]

Take a gander at this one......“ . . . Smith invited Nancy Rigdon, nineteen-year-old daughter of his close friend and counselor, Sidney Rigdon, to meet him at the home of Orson Hyde. Upon her arrival Smith greeted her, ushered her into a private room, then locked the door. After swearing her to secrecy, wrote George W. Robinson, Smith announced his 'affection for her for several years, and wished that she should be his . . . the Lord was well pleased with this matter . . .here was no sin in it whatever . . .but, if she had any scruples of conscience about the matter, he would marry her privately.'

“Incredulous, Nancy countered that 'if she ever got married she would marry a single man or none at all.' Grabbing her bonnet, she ordered the door opened or she would 'raise the neighbors.' She then stormed out of the Hyde-Richards residence.

“The next day, Smith wrote Nancy a letter, where he justified his advances, saying 'That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another . . . . Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. . . . even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation.' This is his first written statement of theocratic ethics.”

(“Official History of the Church,” vol. 5, p. 134-36; and Van Wagoner, “Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait in Religious Excess,” p. 295; cited in ibid

when I read such a story about Joe...I have a hard time understanding how people did not shoot the horny "b" earlier?....

[Phoenix]

when I read such a story about Joe...I have a hard time understanding how people did not shoot the horny "b" earlier?....

Uh, because maybe the stories weren't true? If your enemies started telling malicious stories about you, and you didn't get shot, will people wonder why no one shot YOU? Could be because the people who actually know you, such as your family, knew the stories were false?

[RealFakeHair]

Uh, because maybe the stories weren't true? If your enemies started telling malicious stories about you, and you didn't get shot, will people wonder why no one shot YOU? Could be because the people who actually know you, such as your family, knew the stories were false?
Try using your head, and not your feelings. Take the story of Nancy Rigdon, what part or parts of the story isn't true?

[Libby]

Define gossip (Gossip is idle talk or rumor, especially about personal or private affairs of others.)

From time to time we all go off the reservation, but in which direction?

Yeah, exactly. A lot of what is known about Joseph Smith is taken from journals of the saints. It's difficult, sometimes, to know what is "idle talk or rumor". Just because it is written in someone's journal, doesn't make it true (or an "accurate" account). I would say, if you have several people giving the same story, then chances are good that it IS true.

[Libby]

Can you imagine, a hundred and fifty years from now, sifting through all of the blogs that are out there, right now.....looking at things written about public figures, like Obama? :)

[alanmolstad]

Can you imagine, a hundred and fifty years from now, sifting through all of the blogs that are out there, right now.....looking at things written about public figures, like Obama? :)
I will be about 206 years old at the time.

Do you think I will be that interested in such stuff?

Do you think there will be an "internet" in 20 years?

(I dont really see too many 100 year old people sifting though all their old BETA video tapes)

[Libby]

I will be about 206 years old at the time.

Do you think I will be that interested in such stuff?

Do you think there will be an "internet" in 20 years?

(I dont really see too many 100 year old people sifting though all their old BETA video tapes)

The internet is like TV....much too awesome to just go away! It'll be here, still, only much better (hopefully) and still open and free, I hope!

[alanmolstad]

my prediction?.....in a few years the internet fails.

Places like YouTube with free videos and music will get closed down for copyright violations.

Free message forums like the one I'm posting on right now will close because of a lack of people willing to pay to support them.

In an attempt to earn more cash , there will be something like "All-Web" commercials, where the whole web will see same the commercial ad at the same time that shuts down the whole web during the playing of the commercial.

But in the end, I think that the current flirtation with the internet will fail due to a lack of people willing to pay for it, a lack of people earning enough money to pay to keep it going, along with a drastic future change in technology that will cause people to view the internet as "outdated".

As for what will be the future?....I see the internet evolving into something that is not based on people being always 'active" to do things on it.
Right now for the internet to do anything for us, we have to sit at a computer and type or click on stuff and intend to visit websites.
I believe that in the future the internet devices will not need our personal input to work.

I see the future where we dont need to stop what we are doing in normal life, and then go turn on a computer to be able to get on the internet.
I see the internet running much like the radio, where once you turn it on you don't need to program the stuff you hear but that is all done automatically for us by the radio stations. In a way, I see that being how the internet is running in the future, where it is automatically able to perform and display items to people without needing to be interfering with the person constantly.

The idea of needing to stop what you are doing and sit still at a computer will seem "outdated",and a pointless way to spend time.