WHO has more authority than I do

[Christian]

To speak for God? To serve God? To baptize a new believer? To preach the Word of God (SCRIPTURE)?

My Bible tells me:

John 1:11-13
11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
NKJV

1 Peter 2:7-10
7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,
"The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,"
8 and
"A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense."
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
NKJV


As a BELIEVER I am a member of CHRIST'S ROYAL PRIESTHOOD, and all priests live to serve their master and have the right to do so.

NOBODY has more authority to speak for, act for God that that.

IF you disagree, then SHOW US SCRIPTURE that says we should believe you. . .

[Erundur]

I think you posted this in the wrong forum, unless you're arguing that Mormons are part of your Royal Priesthood as well.

[Christian]

WHO has ore authority than I do?
To speak for God? To serve God? To baptize a new believer? To preach the Word of God (SCRIPTURE)?

My Bible tells me:

John 1:11-13
11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
NKJV

1 Peter 2:7-10
7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,
"The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,"
8 and
"A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense."
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
NKJV


As a BELIEVER I am a member of CHRIST'S ROYAL PRIESTHOOD, and all priests live to serve their master and have the right to do so.

NOBODY has more authority to speak for, act for God that that.

IF you disagree, then SHOW US SCRIPTURE that says we should believe you. . .

I think you posted this in the wrong forum, unless you're arguing that Mormons are part of your Royal Priesthood as well.

Nope. I posted it in the right forum. Mormons don't believe in the same Jesus Christ as we CHRISTIANS do. Different christ, different gods, different gospels, they have no authority over anyone but mormons, and that authority comes only from their own manmade religion.

Sorry erundur, but your claim is meaningless and false.

[Erundur]

Nope. I posted it in the right forum.
Okay, good to know that you consider us members of the Royal Priesthood as well.


Mormons don't believe in the same Jesus Christ as we CHRISTIANS do.
That's right; we believe in the true Jesus Christ of the Bible. By the way, how many Jesus Christs do you think there are? (I've probably asked you that before, but I don't remember the answer.)

[Christian]

confused erunder posted:

Okay, good to know that you consider us members of the Royal Priesthood as well.


That's right; we believe in the true Jesus Christ of the Bible

So you ADMIT that you do NOT BELIEVE IN THE MORMON jesus? You believe in the BIBLICAL Jesus Christ instead?

The BIBLICAL Jesus CREATED the angels, including satan and the rest of those that fell; the BIBLICAL Jesus was their CREATOR, NOT THEIR BROTHER.

of course joey smith made up a bunch of junk. . . about heavenly goddesses popping out 'spirit babies.' They resemble the 'virgins' that the muslims believe they will get when they die..

John 1:1-3
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
NKJV



By the way, how many Jesus Christs do you think there are? (I've probably asked you that before, but I don't remember the answer.)
How many false christs are there?

Let's see now. . .JESUS said:

Matt 24:24-25
24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand.
NKJV

Some I can point out to you. . .

The mormon jesus who is supposedly a spirit-brother of satan.
The christian science jesus who was supposedly just an 'Idea of God,' never a man.
The jw jesus who was a man but was not God at all.

False prophets? Joe smith, bringum young, etc. Sun myung moon. Mary baker eddy.

Want more? I'd bet I could find more for you if you wish.

[Erundur]

arrogant christien posted:


Let's see now. . .the TRUE JESUS CHRIST OF THE BIBLE?
Yes, that's what I said.


Then you DON'T believe in the mormon jesus, huh. After all, the mormon jesus is supposedly a demon, a spirit brother of the devil himself. The mormon jesus didn't CREATE the angels. . .he is a fallen one's brother.
No, you're confusing us with the anti-Mormons.

[alanmolstad]

By the way, how many Jesus Christs do you think there are?

many...that are false.
http://biblehub.com/matthew/24-24.htm

For many false Christs and many False Prophets will arise and deceive many...
http://biblehub.com/matthew/24-5.htm

[alanmolstad]

Amused Alan posted :
.........

[Christian]

Since mormon LEADERSHIP ADMITS that the Jesus Christ we CHRISTIANS follow is NOT the jesus christ THEY follow, the only confusion and arrogance are yours.

No, your non-christian mormon leaders do not have ANY authority over anyone but non-christian mormons.

Call me 'anti-mormon' if you like. The BIBLICAL JESUS CHRIST is as anti-mormon as I am.

Now back to the OP. . .

You STILL have not demonstrated that anyone has more authority to speak or act for God than I, a BIBLICAL Christian have.

[theway]

Since mormon LEADERSHIP ADMITS that the Jesus Christ we CHRISTIANS follow is NOT the jesus christ THEY follow, the only confusion and arrogance are yours.
That is a lie!

I already know that no such admission by Mormon Leadership exists, so I won't even bother asking you to prove it. I also already know what quote you are going to try to use to prove your case.... But before you do, I suggest you read it carefully first.

Therefore I'm left with only two conclusions:
Either you knowingly posted a lie, I.e. You are "lying for the Lord"
Or you are really that ignorant about what we believe, and what the Bible teaches.

This is why all Mormons (as well as most of the non-Mormons here) are either embarr***ed for you because of your incompetence; or we see you as the naive but harmless comic relief of this forum.

For me, I see you as nothing more than the lovable comic relief, who does more harm to your own beliefs, while actually helping the LDS Church at the same time. Thanks for the hours of entertainment you give us.

[Phoenix]

That is a lie!

I already know that no such admission by Mormon Leadership exists, so I won't even bother asking you to prove it. I also already know what quote you are going to try to use to prove your case.... But before you do, I suggest you read it carefully first.

Therefore I'm left with only two conclusions:
Either you knowingly posted a lie, I.e. You are "lying for the Lord"
Or you are really that ignorant about what we believe, and what the Bible teaches.

This is why all Mormons (as well as most of the non-Mormons here) are either embarr***ed for you because of your incompetence; or we see you as the naive but harmless comic relief of this forum.

For me, I see you as nothing more than the lovable comic relief, who does more harm to your own beliefs, while actually helping the LDS Church at the same time. Thanks for the hours of entertainment you give us.

One could make the argument that some of the people who post outlandish, illogical rants against the LDS are knowingly doing it to make the antimormon industry look buffoonish.

[theway]

One could make the argument that some of the people who post outlandish, illogical rants against the LDS are knowingly doing it to make the antimormon industry look buffoonish.I thought about that... And even considered doing that myself. However, you can only keep it up the charade for so long before they either catch on, or you get bored with it. The fact that he has kept up with his nonsense even after all the embarr***ing arguments he has lost, tells me that he actually believes what he does is working. Whether he really believes the lies he espouses is true or not is another thing. I often believe these types of AntiMormons are here more to convince themselves it's not true, than they are here to try and convince us.

[Christian]

[QUOTE=theway;166324]That is a lie!

I already know that no such admission by Mormon Leadership exists, so I won't even bother asking you to prove it. I also already know what quote you are going to try to use to prove your case.... But before you do, I suggest you read it carefully first.

Therefore I'm left with only two conclusions:
Either you knowingly posted a lie, I.e. You are "lying for the Lord"
Or you are really that ignorant about what we believe, and what the Bible teaches.

This is why all Mormons (as well as most of the non-Mormons here) are either embarr***ed for you because of your incompetence; or we see you as the naive but harmless comic relief of this forum.

I think it was at a general conference one of your leaders said you do NOT believe in the same Jesus Christ as historical CHRISTIANS do. Not a 'lie' in any sense of the word.

Did or did NOT your president make the following statements?. . .
"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'" (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p. 7) Copied from Matt Slick's website.

Of course, you as a cultist must re-define my position so you can hack at your redefinition (strawman argument) in self-defense.

For me, I see you as nothing more than the lovable comic relief, who does more harm to your own beliefs, while actually helping the LDS Church at the same time. Thanks for the hours of entertainment you give us.

1 Cor 2:14-15
4 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
NKJV

OF COURSE the Truth is foolishness to you. . .

[Christian]

STILL no 'authority' from the mormons.

Lots of excuses, but NOT ONE WORD FROM GOD.

[theway]

I think it was at a general conference one of your leaders said you do NOT believe in the same Jesus Christ as historical CHRISTIANS do. Not a 'lie' in any sense of the word.
One of my "leaders" said no such thing during conference.



Did or did NOT your president make the following statements?. LOL.... See what I mean by you being nothing more than the comic relief of the forum. You even admit that the quote below is a quote of Matt Slick, not the President of our Church. Yet you use it anyway.



"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'" (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p. 7) Copied from Matt Slick's website.

[Christian]

way posted

One of my "leaders" said no such thing during conference.


Are you DENYING that the mormon president said the following?


In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'" (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p. 7)


I may have gotten the LOCATION wrong, but not the PERSON or his MESSAGE. Are you claiming that Matt Slick LIED, that your president Hinkley DID NOT SAY any such thing?

I quoted it from Matt's website out of convenience. I could likely find it on a MORMON SITE if you doubt its accuracy.

LOL.... See what I mean by you being nothing more than the comic relief of the forum. You even admit that the quote below is a quote of Matt Slick, not the President of our Church. Yet you use it anyway.

Try again. It is a correct CITATION of a correctly CITED reporting by the LDS Church News Week. You may 'get a laugh' from anything you don't understand, but then idiots laugh at people p***ing gas too. . .

[theway]

way posted

One of my "leaders" said no such thing during conference.


Are you DENYING that the mormon president said the following?



I may have gotten the LOCATION wrong, but not the PERSON or his MESSAGE. Are you claiming that Matt Slick LIED, that your president Hinkley DID NOT SAY any such thing?

I quoted it from Matt's website out of convenience. I could likely find it on a MORMON SITE if you doubt its accuracy.

LOL.... See what I mean by you being nothing more than the comic relief of the forum. You even admit that the quote below is a quote of Matt Slick, not the President of our Church. Yet you use it anyway.

Try again. It is a correct CITATION of a correctly CITED reporting by the LDS Church News Week. You may 'get a laugh' from anything you don't understand, but then idiots laugh at people p***ing gas too. . .Still wrong!
But. You are getting warmer... You have gone from 4th hand quotes, to a 3rd hand quote. Please quote what the President actually said, with the quotation marks in the proper location.

[Christian]

Still wrong!
But. You are getting warmer... You have gone from 4th hand quotes, to a 3rd hand quote. Please quote what the President actually said, with the quotation marks in the proper location.

Try READING the post. What part of "president Hinkley" did you NOT understand? What part of the location that was given, the LDS publication, date, and page number DID YOU NOT UNDERSTAND.

Sorry 'way,' but you are going the WRONG way, it appears. . .

Are you DENYING that he said what the lds publication SAID HE SAID?

Why are you RUNNING AWAY FROM THAT QUESTION? DID HE SAY IT OR DID HE NOT?

LOOK FOR YOURSELF on the lds webpage that is given.

[theway]

Try READING the post. What part of "president Hinkley" did you NOT understand? What part of the location that was given, the LDS publication, date, and page number DID YOU NOT UNDERSTAND.

Sorry 'way,' but you are going the WRONG way, it appears. . .

Are you DENYING that he said what the lds publication SAID HE SAID?

Why are you RUNNING AWAY FROM THAT QUESTION? DID HE SAY IT OR DID HE NOT?

LOOK FOR YOURSELF on the lds webpage that is given.
Its your proof, you need to quote it correctly. Please put quotation marks around the part that Hinkley actually said.

[alanmolstad]

[QUOTE=theway;166324]That is a lie!



Although I dont follow all the text of every topic...I have to point out that use of the word "lie" when addressing guests is not allowed under the given rules...

[MickeyS]

Although I dont follow all the text of every topic...I have to point out that use of the word "lie" when addressing guests is not allowed under the given rules...

First I would like to point out that theway said the claim was a lie, the same way Christian called erundur's claim a lie. But if you were to actually follow the text, you would see that theway completely clarifies that point that Christian isn't the liar, the anti-Mormon source that purposefully and deceitfully misquotes church leaders are the liars.

But where's that rule...let's see...

"Please do not refer to a member by any name other than his or her username. Mocking someone's ideas or beliefs is baiting. Pejorative terms like "liar" or "lying" in reference to other members will be considered personal attacks."

Oh yeah, right after those other two rules that you and Christian break on a daily basis.

Do you really expect people to take you seriously?

[alanmolstad]

I never expect squat...and I'm never disoppointed.

But from time to time it's best to remind people that use of the term "lie" when referring to another is going down the wrong path.

[theway]

While you're still trying to figure out why your quotes are wrong, let's look at your OP


IF you disagree, then SHOW US SCRIPTURE that says we should believe you. . .Sure, no problem, and I'll simply use your own verses.


John 1:11-13
11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
NKJVNow I don't get why you used this verse as we agree with it 100%

D&C 11:30 But verily, verily, I say unto you, that as many as receive me, to them will I give power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on my name. Amen.

3 Nephi 9:17 And as many as have received me, to them have I given to become the sons of God; and even so will I to as many as shall believe on my name, for behold, by me redemption cometh, and in me is the law of Moses fulfilled.

So obviously the difference is in interpretation.
We interpret the scripture in the Bible the same way it was meant to be interpreted by John, and by those in the Orthodox Christian Church for 1,500 years.
Your heretical interpretation didn't even exist until Martin Luther invented the idea of a "Priesthood of all believers" in the year 1520.



1 Peter 2:7-10
7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,
"The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,"
8 and
"A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense."
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy. NKJV

What you have overlooked here is that Peter in verse 9 is quoting Exodus 19:5-6

5. Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; 6. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel."…

I think we can both agree that there was no such thing as a "priesthood of all believers" in the Old Testament.
By your own verses, your inability to discern the Word of God has been exposed once again.

[Christian]

Its your proof, you need to quote it correctly. Please put quotation marks around the part that Hinkley actually said.

Why are you STILL RUNNING AWAY FROM THAT QUESTION? DID HE SAY IT OR DID HE NOT?

Why are you so afraid to answer the question?

[theway]

Although I dont follow all the text of every topic...I have to point out that use of the word "lie" when addressing guests is not allowed under the given rules...Oh please... I find it hard to believe that you can not follow the few posts that are not your own posts here, by the few Posters that are actually left.
But if you had been following along, you would have seen that I offered an alternative explanation; that Matt Slick and Christian naively posted misquotes and explanations because they simply do not understand Mormonism, or the Bible.

I'm more than happy to say I'm sorry and go with the alternate explanation if that is what you wish.

[theway]

Why are you STILL RUNNING AWAY FROM THAT QUESTION? DID HE SAY IT OR DID HE NOT?

As you quoted it.... NO!

[Christian]

As you quoted it.... NO!

Still afraid to admit that hinkley said what one of your lds publications SAID HE SAID, huh? Why are you so afraid to ADMIT HE DID? RUN RUN RUN way!

[Christian]

STILL no mormons with the authority we CHRISTIANS have.

[alanmolstad]

Why are you STILL RUNNING AWAY FROM THAT QUESTION? DID HE SAY IT OR DID HE NOT?

Why are you so afraid to answer the question?


it will be interesting to see how this question is answered...(or the lack of an answer more likely :) )

[theway]

STILL no mormons with the authority we CHRISTIANS have.
LOL.... of course not. We have REAL Authority from God; not some made up "Priesthood of all believers" authority of man like you have.

However, what you failed to note is that the majority of people you accept into your Christian Club, do not believe in this "priesthood of all believers" either. Like us, they concider it a heresy.

[theway]

it will be interesting to see how this question is answered...i realize you have a hard time following along... But I already answered that question.

[MickeyS]

I never expect squat...and I'm never disoppointed.

But from time to time it's best to remind people that use of the term "lie" when referring to another is going down the wrong path.

Oh good, at least you're not fooling yourself lol. Because someone who behaves in that manner could seem not only completely hypocritical, but totally deceitful and dishonest as well. It would be very hard to take a person seriously in that situation. But it's good that you aren't expecting anyone to.

[alanmolstad]

I believe that point of any message forum having rules and reminding people to keep them is to allow people the freedom to discuss "ideas' and not just get dragged down into very personal attacks.

None of us have to spend long trying to think of other forums where personal attacks are the norm Im sure.

So its good for all to remember that we can all openly disagree with each other and openly criticize ideas and teachings, that we think are in error.

..its ok to believe all manner of things about past historical figures, but in doing so we have to always remember to keep it about "them" or their "ideas", yet not allow the conversation to drift down into making personal attacks against our other forum fellow guests.


So I dont mind if someone else criticize my faith, or my church, or the great men in the history of my church .

I dont care other guests believe all kinds of things that are completely in error as far as Im concerned.

Lets just not make this personal about each other ok?....

You can attack my church and my ideas all you want to make yourself happy.
I dont really care.
Just dont attack me personally and we wont have a problem getting along and I wont have to add your name to my IGNORE LIST*.










* cuz once you are on that list, there is no getting off it forever...

[MickeyS]

That was very well said, and if I were in a forum where the members in charge actually abided by and respected the rules they established and enforce with some, it would actually mean something. But I'm not, so it doesn't. You simply cannot expect people to believe what you say when your actions prove the exact opposite.

This forum sets a certain tone, and then when others act according to the example set by this tone, they get criticized, chastised and talked down to in a blatantly prejudicial manner simply because of what they believe. All the well spoken words in the world can't hide that well known fact.

And if you put me on your ignore list for pointing out what everyone else already knows....that's completely up to you. I will continue to point out when forum rules are broken...from time to time.

I would like to point out an error in what you said about historical figures. You're right, it's ok to believe whatever you want about historical figures, but when sharing what you believe, "this should be done in a scholarly way--no mocking, contempt, etc. If you cannot do this, than do not post."

Also, when you conveniently tie doctrine that is an integral part of my belief system in with your "discussing" historical figures in the manner in which you do it, you effectively break the other forum rule of repeatedly mocking others beliefs....baiting.

Again, like you said...rules...they're there for a reason, unless the reason is to only be used on those who don't agree with you, simply because you can, then they're good for absolutely nothing.

[alanmolstad]

I really don't care what you say or think about non-members of this forum...I don't think anyone does.

But I do hope that when a new visitor arrives here to visit us that they will see long-time posters such as yourself that never attack others personally. .

And thus it should be the other guests like yourself that I believe should set the best "tone" for others to learn from and follow.

I for one never attack anyone personally..
So when I go after false Mormon teachers and attack their false teachings (as well as the sexual perversions of the Mormon founder Smith) I do so while never attacking other guests to this site in a personal manner.

I care what Smith is guilty of
I don't give a rip about yourself.

If only others followed my good example...

[MickeyS]

Your "good example"??

LOLOL!!! Ohmygoodness, that's priceless. Not attacking other members of the forum is ONE of several rules...it's not the ONLY rule. And there are members here who attack others plenty, daily, actually in every single comment they make..that you don't say one thing about, so again, all those words mean nada. I can only hope new members who come here can see this place immediately for what it is, and not get sucked in like I did.

I have been civil, I have been kind (and been ridiculed for that, thank you very much) and I have tried to keep things about doctrine in a SCHOLARLY fashion. I have also been attacked, called names, and have had my beliefs mocked in disgusting ways. So I don't need you talking down to me like I'm an errant child. Not with the way you talk and the way you allow others to.

So, please, quit acting like you care if people are attacked...because you don't. You only care if non-Mormons are attacked. Ignore me, ban me, whatever. I'm tired of watching the blatant and complete hypocrisy in this forum. It's disgusting.

And I'm not ashamed of what I've said. If one person comes through here and reads this and it causes them to be wary of the behavior of long standing members of this forum...then it will have been all worth it. If they think I'M the problem after reading this, well...then they'll be right at home here :)

[alanmolstad]

Your "good example"??

.....yes thanks,

and I always tell people that if at any time you believe you have been attacked personally or simply dont like another person on the forum, that you can place their name on your personal IGNORE LIST and end any future problems.

So you dont have to bother convincing the "local authorities" to take some type of disciplinary action at all !

You have the power (and the right) to control in this manner all the posts that appear on your own computer screen!
I always suggest people make more use of the IGNORE LIST and thus bring an ending to the common back-and-forth, he said/she said bickering.

[MickeyS]

yes thanks,

and I always tell people that if at any time you believe you have been attacked personally or simply dont like another person on the forum, that you can place their name on your personal IGNORE LIST and end any future problems.

So you dont have to bother convincing the "local authorities" to take some type of disciplinary action at all !

You have the power (and the right) to control in this manner all the posts that appear on your own computer screen!
I always suggest people make more use of the IGNORE LIST and thus bring an ending to the common back-and-forth, he said/she said bickering.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just pointing out that the rules here are completely subjective and therefore totally meaningless. That was my only point. Oh and to call you out on your lip service. But that's it. You don't care what I think, I don't care what you think, it's mutual.

There is no "back and forth" bickering...it's all one-sided

[Christian]

LOL.... of course not. We have REAL Authority from God; not some made up "Priesthood of all believers" authority of man like you have.

However, what you failed to note is that the majority of people you accept into your Christian Club, do not believe in this "priesthood of all believers" either. Like us, they concider it a heresy.


Do you make this junk up as you go? Did I 'make the Bible up?'

It was GOD who gave us the scripture. . .

1 Peter 2:7-10
7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,
"The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,"
8 and
"A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense."
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
NKJV

I'm sorry you disagree with GOD. . .

The ONLY 'authority' mormons have is over their own little 'huddle.'

[alanmolstad]

Over the years I have seen a few people from time to time believe that the rules here were weak and meaningless.

They don't seem to last long for some reason?

[Christian]

Do you make this junk up as you go? Did I 'make the Bible up?'

It was GOD who gave us the scripture. . .

1 Peter 2:7-10
7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,
"The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,"
8 and
"A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense."
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
NKJV

I'm sorry you disagree with GOD. . .

The ONLY 'authority' mormons have is over their own little 'huddle.'



STILL no mormons with the authority to speak for anyone but for mormons. . .

[MickeyS]

Over the years I have seen a few people from time to time believe that the rules here were weak and meaningless.

They don't seem to last long for some reason?

Ok....first off...I never once said the rules themselves were meaningless, I was quite clear about that.

The rules BECOME meaningless when they are being "enforced" by someone who continually breaks them, or when they are used merely to keep certain members in line, while never applying ... EVER... to others. In short...when they are continually abused, they BECOME absolutely meaningless.

You can't expect people to respect the rules if you don't respect them yourself.

And still you have not explained why the rules do not apply to you.

[alanmolstad]

Like I said..

From time to time over the years I have seen people get it into their heads that because they felt strongly that they were in the right on some issue that this also gave them the right to consider the rules did not apply to them.

I remember a Christian poster on this forum that seemed to belive this.
He started to post in a manner that was going down a dark path.
I remember I sent him a few messages on the side in an attempt to go a different direction.

My advice was ignored.

He kept at it and I don't expect anyone was all that shocked to see the word "BANNED" appear on his status.

[theway]

Do you make this junk up as you go? Did I 'make the Bible up?'

It was GOD who gave us the scripture. . .

1 Peter 2:7-10
7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,
"The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,"
8 and
"A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense."
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
NKJV

I'm sorry you disagree with GOD. . .

The ONLY 'authority' mormons have is over their own little 'huddle.'

LOL.... There you go again, blaming your errant understanding of the scriptures on God again.

I showed you in my reply #23 how this verse is to be understood; so if you disagree and understand it incorrectly, that is not God's or my fault, nor is it the fault of the majority of your fellow Christians who also disagree with you, it is your fault.

[alanmolstad]

Still afraid to admit that hinkley said what one of your lds publications SAID HE SAID, huh? Why are you so afraid to ADMIT HE DID? RUN RUN RUN way!

Ever get an answer?

[theway]

Over the years I have seen a few people from time to time believe that the rules here were weak and meaningless.

They don't seem to last long for some reason?That's because they think that this forum... (And all AntiMormon forums like this one), serve some kind of serious purpose other than the entertainment value of it. Therefore they think that they should be taken seriously.
I for one have never reported anyone, nor have I put people on ignore... That's because I am honest about why people come to these forums. If you think it is to guide people away from one side or the other, you will end up frustrated and disappointed... It is also a waste of time. I have had more convert baptisms in one month of actual person to person missionary work, then all of my years on these forums put together.
If a forum gets boring, I will leave on my own long before they have the chance to ban me.

[theway]

Still afraid to admit that hinkley said what one of your lds publications SAID HE SAID, huh? Why are you so afraid to ADMIT HE DID? RUN RUN RUN way!No I'm not afraid to admit that he said what an LDS publication said he said. I pointed out that you misquoted him; you then made a false statement based on that misquote.

[MickeyS]

Like I said..

From time to time over the years I have seen people get it into their heads that because they felt strongly that they were in the right on some issue that this also gave them the right to consider the rules did not apply to them.

I remember a Christian poster on this forum that seemed to belive this.
He started to post in a manner that was going down a dark path.
I remember I sent him a few messages on the side in an attempt to go a different direction.

My advice was ignored.

He kept at it and I don't expect anyone was all that shocked to see the word "BANNED" appear on his status.


Much like my question was ignored lol

It's not about my opinion that I have to be right about...there are rules...you don't follow them. It's quite simple.

It's ok though, thank you for further confirming what this forum is really about.

[Christian]

Originally Posted by Christian http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=166362#post166362)
Do you make this junk up as you go? Did I 'make the Bible up?'

It was GOD who gave us the scripture. . .

1 Peter 2:7-10
7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,
"The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,"
8 and
"A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense."
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
NKJV

I'm sorry you disagree with GOD. . .

The ONLY 'authority' mormons have is over their own little 'huddle.'



LOL.... There you go again, blaming your errant understanding of the scriptures on God again.

I showed you in my reply #23 how this verse is to be understood; so if you disagree and understand it incorrectly, that is not God's or my fault, nor is it the fault of the majority of your fellow Christians who also disagree with you, it is your fault.

Somewhere I must have missed what you CLAIMED. . .

Perhaps you could REPOST your 'explanation' about how God didn't mean what He said through Peter.

Until then, your argument REMAINS with God, not me. And what I posted remains TRUE.

Mormons STILL have no 'authority' over God's people at all. You have not shown that they have ANY AUTHORITY OVER ANYONE ELSE, IN ANY POSTS EVER.

[Christian]

No I'm not afraid to admit that he said what an LDS publication said he said. I pointed out that you misquoted him; you then made a false statement based on that misquote.

You think so? Then please. . .YOU QUOTE HIM CORRECTLY. Do YOU still claim you follow the same Jesus we Christians do?

[alanmolstad]

.... You simply cannot expect people to believe what you say when your actions prove the exact opposite.

.

Oh, an I totally reject the suggestion that I have posted even a single word on this forum that goes against the given rules in actuality or in spirit...

I have not once broken the rules of this forum!

I have not once attempted to bend the rules of this forum!

I have not once attacked anyone, or attempted to bend the rules, or go past what I believe they call for from all guests.


I also believe that all of my posts do in fact, set a good example and standard for all guests to read and learn from.

In fact I believe that if all guests posted in the same manner as I do, with the same spirit I post in, that (regardless of their personal religious understandings) the forum, if not the whole world would be a LOT better!


a LOT better.....







Thus I totally reject any suggestion that even the slightest word coming from my hand has not been in keeping with the highest spirit of being a good example and well within the given rules that govern this message forum.

And,
(here the the relevant part)

and that while I tend to ignore the past personal attacks made against me because Im a very easy-going type of person and really for the most point dont much give a rip what people think of me, ( because they clearly have a lot more issues with our God than they have with just me), I just want to make sure that I make myself clear here and now that (when I think its needed) Im going to make a point of addressing some attacks that I used to just smile at and Im not going to put up with being accused of acting wrongly in silence in the future...



So, there......

[alanmolstad]

.... You simply cannot expect people to believe what you say when your actions prove the exact opposite.

.

Oh, an I totally reject the suggestion that I have posted even a single word on this forum that goes against the given rules in actuality or in spirit...

I have not once broken the rules of this forum!

I have not once attempted to bend the rules of this forum!

I have not once attacked anyone, or attempted to bend the rules, or go past what I believe they call for from all guests.


I also believe that all of my posts do in fact, set a good example and standard for all guests to read and learn from.

In fact I believe that if all guests posted in the same manner as I do, with the same spirit I post in, that (regardless of their personal religious understandings) the forum, if not the whole world would be a LOT better!


a LOT better.....







Thus I totally reject any suggestion that even the slightest word coming from my hand has not been in keeping with the highest spirit of being a good example and well within the given rules that govern this message forum.

And,
(here the the relevant part)

and that while I tend to ignore the past personal attacks made against me because Im a very easy-going type of person and really for the most point dont much give a rip what people think of me, ( because they clearly have a lot more issues with our God than they have with just me), I just want to make sure that I make myself clear here and now that (when I think its needed) Im going to make a point of addressing some attacks that I used to just smile at and Im not going to put up with being accused of acting wrongly in silence in the future...



So, there......

[alanmolstad]

test message..

server locked up again tonight?

[alanmolstad]

test message..

server locked up again tonight?

[MickeyS]

You're going to completely deny that you don't speak in a scholarly fashion regarding past historical figures? You're going to say that you don't repeatedly mock the beliefs of others in an attempt to bait them?

My "attacks" have simply been an attempt to hold you accountable for your breaking the rules, because you are. You are doing both those things. Unless you truly believe the words you use are "scholarly" and do not mock. Wow....that's....wow

These are just a few from browsing past threads....

Definitely NOT "scholarly" and absolutely mocking...repe***ive mocking, and since there are much more intelligent ways to convey the following comments, your language was obviously intended to get a reaction out of Mormons...THAT is baiting

"I have to wonder why people didn't try to shoot the horny guy in the face a lot sooner than they did?"

"Was Mr Zipper involved?"

"Amen CHRISTIAN! ,...The Mormon Jesus is like a horny jackrabbit on date night...."

"as far as I know...the Mormon Jesus is only a bit less horny than the Mormon Heavenly Father.......only slightly less....."

"the Mormon idea of the Father is like a horny jackrabbit on date night... "

"I remember from somewhere that the Mormon founder Joe Smith talked about a new teaching he came out with that had Jesus knocking loafers with a girl"

Talk all you want about a good example...

And before you say anything...I have not been perfect in my interactions either...as I would react to the attacks and baiting from others...but again...I was only following the tone that was being set. And you are one of the people who have set that tone. I'm not attacking you, but I am addressing your claims.

You KNOW I have attempted countless times to be respectful and keep to addressing issues and doctrine...it has repeatedly been met with this baiting, by you and others. I actually believed at one time that you wanted to have sincere conversations with me and it's like you lured me in and then started in with your decidedly UN-scholarly comments. It's as if you guys are purposefully trying to push us to respond in ways that will make us look bad so that you can post your "I'm perfect" speeches and look like the bigger man.

I have no idea if this was Walters intentions for his ministry..but as I don't know the man, and have never even heard of him before coming across this forum, I have to say, I am puzzled as to how this behavior is possibly "reaching out" to Mormons in a Christian way. It certainly doesn't make me want to have anything to do with what you're "teaching".

[alanmolstad]

You're going to completely deny that.....".

Is there something about my post that appears hard to undestand?
let me state this as clearly as I can once again-


I totally reject the idea that even one word from my hands has gone against the rules that given this website...

I believe I have made this point totally clear..

I totally and fully 100% reject the suggestion that even the slightest word from my hand was against even the spirit of the given rules...

But based on the fact that I believe my past silence when Im attacked has simply caused members to ***ume they can spew-out **** against me and get away with it....we now have the following -

From now on...
from now on I am not just going to automatically ignore comments made against me that are so clearly devoid of reason and foundation.

Up until now I have simply smiled when I have seen such totally groundless attacks made against me...I ignored such comments because I simply don't give a rip what others think of me when its so clear to me that they got a lot of other issues on their plate to deal with besides their foolishness aimed at myself....But from now on when I see things aimed at my posts Im going to make sure all understand that I no longer am going to be the silent target of false attacks.

and this means?
This means that I will use the advice I give out to others, and fire-up my IGNORE LIST...

[alanmolstad]

"Was Mr Zipper involved?"
.

I was reading at a website the other day...

And there popped up the idea in Mormonism's history of trading sex with Smith for salvation.
( https://books.google.com/books?id=lRcMAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=mormon+smith++had+sex+with+two+sisters&source=bl&ots=VVKcEKD9n1&sig=lsKAmJmwVicTi_eMbAITkYSYOZk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUzKGpi9HKAhXF5yYKHasKB444ChDoAQgbMAA#v =onepage&q=mormon%20smith%20%20had%20sex%20with%20two%20sis ters&f=false )
and what you come away with after reading the whole account of the sexual deviant behavior of Smith around younger girls is that the guy was just unable to "Keep it in his pants"

Time after time we read that he would go stay with people and from the get-go makes a play to bed-down with the wife or the daughter.

the power he had over people that had placed their full trust in him caused Smith to twist their faith into a means for him to score with both single girls, as well as with the married wives of men who trusted him.

What else is clear is that if given a chance he would have gladly hopped from bed to bed, girl to girl, sister to sister, like a horny jackrabbit on date night.


This all gets us back the real reason we have a Mormon church ie "SEX"


From reading this website(I linked above) I can only conclude the reason Smith dreamed up all his ideas about the Golden plates and why he talked about messages from angels demanding he start sleeping around was to support this fixation he had with younger and younger girls.

I can only conclude bedding them was really the only goal Smith seems to have had during his whole life.

its like he shows up, takes one look at a pretty young thing who lives there and suddenly says, "The Lord has given you to be my wife"

and it was because of "Mr Zipper's call" that Smith got shot in the end.

[alanmolstad]

....
and it was because of "Mr Zipper's call" that Smith got shot in the end.


I mean he got shot in the head, not in his end....
(But it was his end however)

[MickeyS]

What does ANY of that have to do with you breaking the rules?? You gave absolutely no explanation for why you are not expected to keep discussions about historical figures in a "scholarly manner". The best I can see is that you're saying you can because you heard somebody else do it?? Really?

And no explanation for the repe***ive baiting.

You say you will no longer ignore "attacks" against you. And that's all I'm doing. I will no longer ignore blatant rule breaking like I have been. And I'm not making it about YOU personally...I'm merely making it about the words you post that break forum rules. I don't understand...why post these rules at all if they don't mean anything?

Again, if I get ignored or banned for this, I certainly hope reasonable individuals will completely understand what I'm saying.

But I'm not going into it anymore, I'm just not backing down from the truth, because it's irrefutable. Sorry.

[alanmolstad]

again...I totally reject any suggestion that even one of my posts are against the letter or the spirit of the given rules.

I dont attack anyone...I have never attacked the people here.

Disagree with me?......then find me one place where I attacked anyone in even a slightly personal manner.

You cant...

cuz I dont....
I dont put down any guest's religious views in a direct person, in-your-face manner..
In fact, for the most part I dont even respond to the posts of others around here.

(Most of the time people get all bent out of shape because I have ignored they posts...so that just shows you how off the mark any criticism of me is to say I have attacked anyone in any manner at all.....in fact people are angry most of the time because I dont act like I even pay attention to them at all !!!)

I mostly just stick to talking about historical people and what i think of their teachings and their deeds.





So this means?

So this means I find your statements "Ridiculous", and are perhaps a sign that you are simply following the typical pattern of a CULTIST that is boxed-in by a topic with no way out, and so want to try to "Get personal" in an attempt to change the topic and make the conversation centered on something else (Like me) and not have to deal with the known historical sexual perversions that so dominated so much of Smith's life....


Your words also do remind me of a debate I once listened to between Walter Martin and a member of a CULT.
Let me tell you about that...

The CULTIST was attempting to defend the history of the CULT'S founder to Walter, and after while when the CULTIST finally had been argued into the same box, the CULTIST exclaimed in frustration that he wanted only to talk about the more modern teachings of the CULT and not have their conversation be so centered on just the very questionable history of their founder.

Walter Martin responded with a laugh,
and said that he did not blame the CULTIST for not wanting to talk about their history.
Walter Martin added that if he were part of a religion with such a history he would not want to talk about it either... :)



Moving on...

In the link that talks about the sexual history of Smith there is yet a lot of information I have not touched on yet.....and I think there is more than enough found in the accounts of Smith sexual conquests to prove that the man was a monster.

Smith was only in it for the sex.

Smith used the trust people put in him as away to gain sexual access to young girls.




Today, we can see Mormonism as simply the remains of one man's lust

[alanmolstad]

I was reading about the Mormon founder Smith....and I saw that there is a well researched listing of about 15 girls and women that Smith propositioned that turned him down ..

As I was going over the information I had to think to myself-
"Was this guy just walking around propositioning women constantly or what?


I started thinking how differently I would have acted had the same type of guy ever shown up at my door?

Can you just imagine what it was like for his followers ?
Here the "Prophet" shows up at their door asking to stay the night...and rather than turning out to be this great spiritual leader, the next thing you know the guy is acting all creepy and saying that God wants him to bed your little sister???


Smith would not have lasted long at the Molstad household...LOL


But still...I do kinda feel sorry for the true-believer followers of Smith who ran smack into the truth of what Smith was truly like as a person.


That same thing sorts happened once when the rock group the BEATLES traveled over to India to learn the secrets of the East form a Guru....only to get there and find out that the world famous Guru was actually sexual creeper and only wanted to have sex with Yoko...

[MickeyS]

"I dont attack anyone...I have never attacked the people here."

That is not the only rule in this forum. You keep bringing up that one rule, and ignoring the rules you do break, which you do. Period. Hey....I didn't make the rules. Again, if those other rules don't apply, they need to be removed.

[MickeyS]

again...I totally reject any suggestion that even one of my posts are against the letter or the spirit of the given rules.

I dont attack anyone...I have never attacked the people here.

Disagree with me?......then find me one place where I attacked anyone in even a slightly personal manner.

You cant...

cuz I dont....
I dont put down any guest's religious views in a direct person, in-your-face manner..
In fact, for the most part I dont even respond to the posts of others around here.

(Most of the time people get all bent out of shape because I have ignored they posts...so that just shows you how off the mark any criticism of me is to say I have attacked anyone in any manner at all.....in fact people are angry most of the time because I dont act like I even pay attention to them at all !!!)

I mostly just stick to talking about historical people and what i think of their teachings and their deeds.





So this means?

So this means I find your statements "Ridiculous", and are perhaps a sign that you are simply following the typical pattern of a CULTIST that is boxed-in by a topic with no way out, and so want to try to "Get personal" in an attempt to change the topic and make the conversation centered on something else (Like me) and not have to deal with the known historical sexual perversions that so dominated so much of Smith's life....


Your words also do remind me of a debate I once listened to between Walter Martin and a member of a CULT.
Let me tell you about that...

The CULTIST was attempting to defend the history of the CULT'S founder to Walter, and after while when the CULTIST finally had been argued into the same box, the CULTIST exclaimed in frustration that he wanted only to talk about the more modern teachings of the CULT and not have their conversation be so centered on just the very questionable history of their founder.

Walter Martin responded with a laugh,
and said that he did not blame the CULTIST for not wanting to talk about their history.
Walter Martin added that if he were part of a religion with such a history he would not want to talk about it either... :)



Moving on...

In the link that talks about the sexual history of Smith there is yet a lot of information I have not touched on yet.....and I think there is more than enough found in the accounts of Smith sexual conquests to prove that the man was a monster.

Smith was only in it for the sex.

Smith used the trust people put in him as away to gain sexual access to young girls.




Today, we can see Mormonism as simply the remains of one man's lust

That entire post was full of baiting....you made personal ***umptions about me, you have attempted to get a reaction out of me by repeatedly using CULT all in caps...etc etc... But you hit the nail on the head with your admittance that you don't believe you insult in an "in your face manner". You do try to be very careful that you do not "appear" to directly insult others...

And still you simply keep trying to distract from the fact that there are rules you break. I have pointed them out. All that other stuff designed to upset me...isn't.

And you can insult me as long as you put the words in quotation marks? Where does it state that in the rules.

And you cannot say I am avoiding topics...I have given very detailed posts regarding doctrine and in response to your sources you use. You know full well I am not afraid to address topics. So your accusation of my "cultist" behavior that was designed to upset me, didn't...sorry....I know better.

[alanmolstad]

That entire post was full of baiting..........

Well, I think your post is "full" of something else.....:)

Now I kinda like my posted comment that you quoted,(I think its one of my best !) and if there are any of my conclusions that you would like me to return to and go over with you to learn how I came to that conclusion?...I would be more that happy to talk about it and why I feel about that thing the way that I do.

an example is that I have pointed out that Smith's behavior and the way he would come to someone's home, and start attempting to bed one or more of the women there, regardless of their being already married, was very "creepy"

If you would like more information on what it is that Im thinking of when I conclude that Smith was "creepy" let me know and we will go over that part of the Link's information.
( check it out for yourself at https://books.google.com/books?id=lRcMAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=mormon+smith++had+sex+with+two+sisters&source=bl&ots=VVKcEKD9n1&sig=lsKAmJmwVicTi_eMbAITkYSYOZk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUzKGpi9HKAhXF5yYKHasKB444ChDoAQgbMAA#v =onepage&q=mormon%20smith%20%20had%20sex%20with%20two%20sis ters&f=false )

so, what would you like to know more about?

[alanmolstad]

so just point to the section of any posted comment I have made, and ask me how I can draw that conclusion?

[alanmolstad]

I was reading at a website the other day...

And there popped up the idea in Mormonism's history of trading sex with Smith for salvation.


Here in this part of one of my posted comments on the topic of Smith's sexual conquests, I introduce the idea that in Smith's attempts to get girls into his bed he came up with the idea of "trading sex with Smith for salvation"

Now the idea that someone would try to convince girls that by bedding-down with Smith it would mean they or their family would be blessed in Heaven is totally disgusting to most of us, and Im sure you also find such an idea just as disgusting!

so if you would like me to talk about how I came to the conclusion that this was yet what Smith was doing?.....just let me know and we can go over the listed information I found and how it leads me to the one and only conclusion,,,ie ,,,,that Smith was trading sex with him for eternal salvation.


If you want proof?...just let me know

[alanmolstad]

( https://books.google.com/books?id=lRcMAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=mormon+smith++had+sex+with+two+sisters&source=bl&ots=VVKcEKD9n1&sig=lsKAmJmwVicTi_eMbAITkYSYOZk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUzKGpi9HKAhXF5yYKHasKB444ChDoAQgbMAA#v =onepage&q=mormon%20smith%20%20had%20sex%20with%20two%20sis ters&f=false )
and what you come away with after reading the whole account of the sexual deviant behavior of Smith around younger girls is that the guy was just unable to "Keep it in his pants"

.

In the above quotation of one of my posts, I talk about the conclusion that after looking at the information on Smith's sexual conquests and his failed attempts at bedding-down other girls, his Modus operandi of sending husbands out of town on a "mission"and then the way he later would come sniffing around the guy's wife....it all leads me to conclude that Smith seems to be completely driven by sexual thoughts, and that in other words, Smith couldn't "keep it in his pants"






Now if you would like to learn what events in Smith's history Im reading that bring me to this conclusion?...just let me know....

[alanmolstad]

What else is clear is that if given a chance he would have gladly hopped from bed to bed, girl to girl, sister to sister, like a horny jackrabbit on date night.


.

In this quotation I talk about another conclusion I have drawn about the way Smith seems to be driven only by "mr Zipper" and how over and over we read accounts of Smith going from one bed to another, from one women to another, from one "sister"to another....and what this reminds me of.


If you would like to know what specifically what things Im reading that support my conclusion that in many ways Smith was acting like a " horny jackrabbit on date night" just let me know?....

[alanmolstad]

Your words also do remind me of a debate I once listened to between Walter Martin and a member of a CULT.
Let me tell you about that...

The CULTIST was attempting to defend the history of the CULT'S founder to Walter, and after while when the CULTIST finally had been argued into the same box, the CULTIST exclaimed in frustration that he wanted only to talk about the more modern teachings of the CULT and not have their conversation be so centered on just the very questionable history of their founder.

Walter Martin responded with a laugh,
and said that he did not blame the CULTIST for not wanting to talk about their history.
Walter Martin added that if he were part of a religion with such a history he would not want to talk about it either... :)





In the above quotation I point out that some of the things I am reading on this forum do remind me strongly of something I once heard in a recording of a debate between Dr Walter Martin and a CULTIST.

Now if you would like to hear this debate for yourself to see how closely the remarks on this forum do seem to be very close to the words of the CULTIST in the debate?...then I could do a search and find the recording and post the link.

I believe the debate is on YouTube....

however it would require me to listen to the entire debate, and it is likely well over an hour, so it would mean a lot of work on my part...with likely very little pay-off in the end for my efforts.

never the less, if you want to learn what it is that so reminds me of the debate?....let me know and I will see what I can do...

[alanmolstad]

let me show you another thing about posting on any other message forum like this:


"You are a fool" = a personal attack as it is aimed only at the person themselves.

"Your ideas are foolish" = is not a personal attack as it is aimed only at the "ideas' and not at the person.
This shows that the person writing this understands that there is a difference between "ideas' and with "people"





thus you can attack the teachings of the christian or the Mormon church, as its not seen as a "personal attack" of another guest.
You can say all manner of things against a church, or against the concept of religion....for this is not seen as maing a personal attack against another person .

For each guest to a message forum should have the right to expect not to be attacked in a very personal manner.

But with sites like this, you have to also expect that you may not share in your views on religion, and that you should also expect that some of your views might be attacked in a very strong manner.....its a given.



and for some people who live very sheltered lives, having one's ideas attacked may seem like they are attacking you in a very personal manner.

But they aren't.
They are going after your ideas....bringing up things in the history of your religion that you may not want to talk about....drawing their own conclusions about people who lived in the past and who now are all dead and gone....but they are attacking you in a personal manner....

So you cant attack them in a personal manner too.

You can say that their ideas remind you of others you have seen before...you can talk about these others you are reminded of...but as long as you dont start posting things like, "You lie"...or"You are a fool"....you are not guilty of breaking the rules.

[alanmolstad]

let me show you another thing about posting on any other message forum like this:


"You are a fool" = a personal attack as it is aimed only at the person themselves.

"Your ideas are foolish" = is not a personal attack as it is aimed only at the "ideas' and not at the person.
This shows that the person writing this understands that there is a difference between "ideas' and with "people"





thus you can attack the teachings of the christian or the Mormon church, as its not seen as a "personal attack" of another guest.
You can say all manner of things against a church, or against the concept of religion....for this is not seen as maing a personal attack against another person .

For each guest to a message forum should have the right to expect not to be attacked in a very personal manner.

But with sites like this, you have to also expect that you may not share in your views on religion, and that you should also expect that some of your views might be attacked in a very strong manner.....its a given.



and for some people who live very sheltered lives, having one's ideas attacked may seem like they are attacking you in a very personal manner.

But they aren't.
They are going after your ideas....bringing up things in the history of your religion that you may not want to talk about....drawing their own conclusions about people who lived in the past and who now are all dead and gone....but they are attacking you in a personal manner....

So you cant attack them in a personal manner too.

You can say that their ideas remind you of others you have seen before...you can talk about these others you are reminded of...but as long as you dont start posting things like, "You lie"...or"You are a fool"....you are not guilty of breaking the rules.

[MickeyS]

let me show you another thing about posting on any other message forum like this:


"You are a fool" = a personal attack as it is aimed only at the person themselves.

"Your ideas are foolish" = is not a personal attack as it is aimed only at the "ideas' and not at the person.
This shows that the person writing this understands that there is a difference between "ideas' and with "people"





thus you can attack the teachings of the christian or the Mormon church, as its not seen as a "personal attack" of another guest.
You can say all manner of things against a church, or against the concept of religion....for this is not seen as maing a personal attack against another person .

For each guest to a message forum should have the right to expect not to be attacked in a very personal manner.

But with sites like this, you have to also expect that you may not share in your views on religion, and that you should also expect that some of your views might be attacked in a very strong manner.....its a given.



and for some people who live very sheltered lives, having one's ideas attacked may seem like they are attacking you in a very personal manner.

But they aren't.
They are going after your ideas....bringing up things in the history of your religion that you may not want w your to talk about....drawing their own conclusions about people who lived in the past and who now are all dead and gone....but they are attacking you in a personal manner....

So you cant attack them in a personal manner too.

You can say that their ideas remind you of others you have seen before...you can talk about these others you are reminded of...but as long as you dont start posting things like, "You lie"...or"You are a fool"....you are not guilty of breaking the rules.

Ok, then I can state that you sound perverted but not say you yourself are a pervert, got it. I can say your language is excessively crude and redundant, and sounds like baiting. Excellent, thanks for clearing that up

[alanmolstad]

Ok, then I can state that you sound perverted but not say you yourself are a pervert,



its like,,,,you can tell a person they have a "child-like voice", is different than saying they are "childish"
One sentence is talking about just their voice, the other is talking about them personally.

[alanmolstad]

.....Excellent, thanks for clearing that upJust let me know if I ever post something you doubt is true, ?
Or you call into question some conclusion I have drawn and want to know what I base it on?

I will be happy to go over everything with you and show you how all that i have said and will say in the future is always based on the facts that I am finding true about the sexual history of Smith, both with married and single women.

[MickeyS]

Just let me know if I ever post something you doubt is true, ?
Or you call into question some conclusion I have drawn and want to know what I base it on?

I will be happy to go over everything with you and show you how all that i have said and will say in the future is always based on the facts that I am finding true about the sexual history of Smith, both with married and single women.

I do call out your conclusions and your sources....repeatedly....there are no facts...there are unreliable sources. And your conclusions from these "sources" are, well...they are ridiculous, crude and quite obsessive. Most times I'm just ignored, because a lot people in those situations think if they just ignore what the other person says, it doesn't exist, and they can continue to establish their "facts" unchallenged. Some people would think that's a pretty immature and childish mentality...

And you still break forum rules by using non-scholarly mocking speech like "horny jackrabbit", "Mr Zipper", "knocking boots", etc etc, and speak with contempt when discussing historical figures. Still against the rules.

So there's still that...which you've never once explained

But let me reiterate...you...have...no...facts...about any SEXUAL history regarding Joseph Smith. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada

[Christian]

LOL.... of course not. We have REAL Authority from God; not some made up "Priesthood of all believers" authority of man like you have.

However, what you failed to note is that the majority of people you accept into your Christian Club, do not believe in this "priesthood of all believers" either. Like us, they concider it a heresy.

Do YOU consider that the most of the mormons who don't believe bringum young was a prophet of God or that the utah mormons are from God at all are wrong just because YOUR group is 'unpopular?' Do YOU think God operates a 'popularity contest?'

You have no EVIDENCE to offer that says that CHRISTIANS consider 1 Peter 2:7-10 to be heresy. In other words, like joseph smith and his peepstone, you are talking through your hat!

[alanmolstad]

In other words, like joseph smith and his peepstone, you are talking through your hat!


LOL...good one!

[Christian]

wrong way posted:


Originally Posted by Christian http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=166453#post166453)
Do YOU consider that the most of the mormons who don't believe bringum young was a prophet of God or that the utah mormons are from God at all are wrong just because YOUR group is 'unpopular?' Do YOU think God operates a 'popularity contest?'


Well, it looks like you finally realized what I was saying was true; that your belief in "A Priesthood of all believers" was not a "Christian" view, but it belongs as a heretical minority viewpoint, else, you wouldn't have felt the need to revisit my post.

What a JOKE! Christians have believed the "royal priesthood" p***age from the beginning. Do you ALWAYS FEEL THE NEED TO RATIONALIZE SO WILDLY?????

However, complaining about Brigham Young and popularity contests, will not provide a solution to the conflicting beliefs you hold.

The beliefs I hold are the beliefs historical Christianity has held for about 2,000 years now. Joey smith invented his NEW belief system.


Originally Posted by Christian
You have no EVIDENCE to offer that says that CHRISTIANS consider 1 Peter 2:7-10 to be heresy. In other words, like joseph smith and his peepstone, you are talking through your hat!



LOL... So this is how you deal with your cognitive dissonance... Is by creating a strawman and claiming I said something I did not say or write.


No 'cognitive dissonance' or 'strawman.' I did not claim you said or wrote anything at all. More WILD RATIONALIZATION by you, of course. We CHRISTIANS simply accept 1 Peter 2:7-10 AS IT IS WRITTEN. Your 'talking through your hat' of course is an idiom that apparently you can't connect with your peepstone gazer because you have been so brainwashed.

In fact, I made sure that I said it was YOUR interpretation of 1Peter 2:9 that Christians believed to be heretical...


I don't 'interpret' it. I just read it as it is WRITTEN. You have not demonstrated that Christians believed it to be heretical, and I have no reason to believe your brainwashed speculation that they did.

But whatever helps you sleep at night....

GOD gives me peaceful sleep, thank you. You ought to try going with HIM.

[Christian]

to act for God or speak for God than EVERY CHRISTIAN EVERYWHERE, ALL are members of Christ's ROYAL PRIESTHOOD.

[alanmolstad]

the veil is torn....
There now is no secret place that we are kept from entering.
We all now have the ability to enter in where before only one person went once a year.

[Christian]

Keep telling yourself that.... Maybe someday somebody will believe you.
Of course they would have to be Bible illiterate, such as yourself.

Since I am a believer (biblically literate or not), I STILL FIT THE ONES THE FOLLOWING P***AGE IS ADDRESSED TO:

1 Peter 2:7-10
7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,
"The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,"
8 and
"A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense."
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
NKJV

You can 'spin your tales' until you get dizzy and fall down, yet you CANNOT DENY THE TRUTH THAT GOD GAVE ALL OF US CHRISTIANS (men AND women) WHO BELIEVE HIS ROYAL PRIESTHOOD; including the right to speak and act for HIM.

So call us names like 'illiterate' and 'stupid' and 'ignorant' if you wish. We are simply GOD'S HOLY PEOPLE.

So why whine about it? Does that take the wind out of your mormon 'priesthood's' sails?

[Christian]

Keep telling yourself that.... Maybe someday somebody will believe you.
Of course they would have to be Bible illiterate, such as yourself.


Since GOD said it. . .IT IS TRUE. CHRISTIANS EVERYWHERE believe what GOD says.

You STILL have not shown any lacking in my understanding of this p***age:

1 Peter 2:7-10
7 Therefore, to you who believe (Yep, that would include me, along with EVERY CHRISTIAN EVERYWHERE ), He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,
"The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,"
8 and
"A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense."
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people (yep, that includes me along with EVERY CHRISTIAN EVERYWHERE), that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
NKJV

Now WHAT WORDS IN THAT P***AGE have you confused? WHICH ONES DO YOU DISAGREE WITH?

[BigJulie]

Since GOD said it. . .IT IS TRUE. CHRISTIANS EVERYWHERE believe what GOD says.

You STILL have not shown any lacking in my understanding of this p***age:

1 Peter 2:7-10
7 Therefore, to you who believe (Yep, that would include me, along with EVERY CHRISTIAN EVERYWHERE ), He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,
"The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,"
8 and
"A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense."
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people (yep, that includes me along with EVERY CHRISTIAN EVERYWHERE), that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
NKJV

Now WHAT WORDS IN THAT P***AGE have you confused? WHICH ONES DO YOU DISAGREE WITH?

You stated "you CANNOT DENY THE TRUTH THAT GOD GAVE ALL OF US CHRISTIANS (men AND women) WHO BELIEVE HIS ROYAL PRIESTHOOD; including the right to speak and act for HIM."

But scripture states: For God is not a God of confusion.." 1 Cor 14:33

If you were all his priesthood and all have the "right" to speak and act FOR HIM--then there would, in no way, be so many difference beliefs surrounding things such as woman in the priesthood, baptism, the second coming, etc.

[Christian]

You stated "you CANNOT DENY THE TRUTH THAT GOD GAVE ALL OF US CHRISTIANS (men AND women) WHO BELIEVE HIS ROYAL PRIESTHOOD; including the right to speak and act for HIM."

But scripture states: For God is not a God of confusion.." 1 Cor 14:33

If you were all his priesthood and all have the "right" to speak and act FOR HIM--then there would, in no way, be so many difference beliefs surrounding things such as woman in the priesthood, baptism, the second coming, etc.

You mean like the mormon different beliefs such as polygamy/no polygamy, who should own the Temple Lot, etc? The 150+ different 'mormon' groups?

The Bible also states:

Judas went and hanged himself
and
go thou and do likewise
and
hurry, do not tarry.

You can snatch ALL SORTS of phrases OUT OF THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY WERE WRITTEN and 'force them' into your own private mouldy mold to say whatever you want.

Of course 1 Corinthians 14:33 HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DIFFERING CHURCH DOCTRINES, now does it?

Try again, julie. But next time, TRY to find something that might agree with you in the BIBLE.

[BigJulie]

You mean like the mormon different beliefs such as polygamy/no polygamy, who should own the Temple Lot, etc? The 150+ different 'mormon' groups?

The Bible also states:

Judas went and hanged himself
and
go thou and do likewise
and
hurry, do not tarry.

You can snatch ALL SORTS of phrases OUT OF THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY WERE WRITTEN and 'force them' into your own private mouldy mold to say whatever you want.

Of course 1 Corinthians 14:33 HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DIFFERING CHURCH DOCTRINES, now does it?

Try again, julie. But next time, TRY to find something that might agree with you in the BIBLE.


You stated: "WHO BELIEVE HIS ROYAL PRIESTHOOD; including the right to speak and act for HIM."

The examples you gave, I can tell you that when God has a prophet, he can make changes--such as when he to kill all the Midianites, but then tells us not to kill. As he leads his prophets, he lets him know what he wants.

As to the 150+ Mormon churches---I would love for you to make a list of them, I can think of only a few break offs, although, I am sure you can find a list somewhere.

But here is my main point--in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, if you do not believe in the priesthood keys of the prophet and follow what is revealed to him, you are either not a member or are excommunicated. In this way, there are not many points of differing doctrine, but rather one clear, straight and narrow way to follow Christ.

What about your differing doctrines--do you acknowledge that you are right and they are wrong--or do you try to say that all can speak and act for God, yet all be different?