Can we have a "real" discussion about Joseph Smith and Polygamy?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Sara

I'm sorry to hear that, Libby. You really should have done some research then to find out for yourself. There is proof.

Well Sara, that is what Libby is telling you, she has found that the research done by others is false and does not prove he did anything immoral. So far you have not provide anything that shows otherwise, you say Emma found Joseph and Fanny together, that she walked in on them, but you do not prove it was Emma making the accusation. What you produced was here-say, and gossip.

R.

[baptizedinChrist]

Originally Posted by Libby

Hi Sara......Just to set the record straight (as I really don't want to involve myself further in this discussion), I didn't really do enough research. I listened to a lot of opinions, many of which were wrong, I believe. There is no proof that Joseph was involved in any sexual sin whatsoever.

I left the LDS Church for a year and half, but I have just recently returned, and believe Joseph to be a true Prophet.

Libby, how do you defend the act of Smith marrying sisters?

[Sara]

Originally Posted by Richard

Well Sara, that is what Libby is telling you, she has found that the research done by others is false and does not prove he did anything immoral. So far you have not provide anything that shows otherwise, you say Emma found Joseph and Fanny together, that she walked in on them, but you do not prove it was Emma making the accusation. What you produced was here-say, and gossip.

R.

Richard, I could reincarnate Fannie Alger herself, and you still wouldn't believe her. You would try to discredit her, the same way you're doing now.

[JDErickson]

Originally Posted by Libby

Hi Sara......Just to set the record straight (as I really don't want to involve myself further in this discussion), I didn't really do enough research. I listened to a lot of opinions, many of which were wrong, I believe. There is no proof that Joseph was involved in any sexual sin whatsoever.

I left the LDS Church for a year and half, but I have just recently returned, and believe Joseph to be a true Prophet.

Hi Libby. Nice to see you around.

Sad day to hear the news of your return to Mormonism but I know God works in strange ways. Best wishes to you and your family. I'll be praying for you.

[Bob Betts]

Originally Posted by Libby

Hi Sara......Just to set the record straight (as I really don't want to involve myself further in this discussion), I didn't really do enough research. I listened to a lot of opinions, many of which were wrong, I believe. There is no proof that Joseph was involved in any sexual sin whatsoever.

I left the LDS Church for a year and half, but I have just recently returned, and believe Joseph to be a true Prophet.

Hi Libby, I hope you've forgiven me, as I asked at CC. I still very much love you, continue to trust God for your salvation.

Anita told me that some of the old regulars are posting here, and invited me to join in. So, here I am.

For the record, I put Richard on my ignore list, as soon as I registered here. After what I have witnessed in the initial private e-mails he sent me that I read, I'm convinced that he is possessed of a demon. Anita informed me that he's been back-biting me, here. So, I don't want to hear or respond to anything he says to or about me.

Now, I observed your wording about your view of the evidence regarding Joseph Smith's character and behavior. You said that you believe that many of the opinions about him are wrong. That leaves the door wide open, that you could believe that some of the opinions are not just opinions, but are facts which you aren't prepared to defend.

So, are you of the opinion that Joseph Smith did not marry any married woman? On the list of Smith's wives at LDS.org, four of those married women are listed as his wives. 1. Zina Huntington Jacobs, married to Henry Jacobs at the time Smith married her; 2. Precendia Huntington Buell, married to Norman Buell at the time Smith married her; 3. Sylvia Sessions Lyon, married to Windsor Lyon at the time that Smith married her; 4. Mary Rollins Lightner, married to Adam Lightner at the time that Smith married her.

So, you cannot deny that even your "church" acknowledges that he married four non-virgins, which is in violation of D&C 132:61. If he married virgins, it was adultery. This is neither opinion nor conjecture. This is fact.

Therefore, your ***essment that "there is no proof that Joseph was involved in any sexual sin whatsoever," is only true if he had no sex with them. But, it's still adultery to marry a non-virgin and/or someone espoused to another, according to D&C 132:61, which is what Smith did.

But, Mormons will argue, that he didn't have sex with any of them, so it doesn't matter. Yet, D&C 132:63 states that the reason for God to command plural marriage of Smith was "to multiply and replenish the earth." Therefore, if Smith did NOT have sexual relations with ALL of his plural wives, in order to multiply and replenish the earth, then every wife he didn't have sexual relations with was a violation of the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. Multiply that violation of withholding sexual relations, for the purpose of having children, and you have at least 33 violations of the law of the priesthood, D&C 132:63, depending on how many times he SHOULD have reasonably had sexual relations with all of his wives, to attempt to bare children.

Breaking a commandment of God, a minimum of 33 times. Would that alone, not fall under the category of evil fruit, according to Jesus' teaching about false prophets in Matt. 7:18? Add to that, marrying other men's wives. Smith was an evil man, and I haven't even gotten started on his dozens of false prophecies, one of which was exposed by David Whitmer. A prophecy which didn't come to p***, and is strangely absent from the D&C. Cover up?

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by bcspace

You are correct. There is just speculation.

---To be precise, what there is, is accusations. Where the speculation part enters in, is where people speculate that the accusations are true.

[Richard]

Quoting Honest Abe Bobb Betts.
Anita told me that some of the old regulars are posting here, and invited me to join in. So, here I am.

For the record, I put Richard on my ignore list, as soon as I registered here. After what I have witnessed in the initial private e-mails he sent me that I read, I'm convinced that he is possessed of a demon. Anita informed me that he's been back-biting me, here. So, I don't want to hear or respond to anything he says to or about me.

Interesting post, and I have no idea who Anita is, but if she is sharing that I have been back-biting Bob Betts, I sure would like to know where she gets that from. So will the real Anita step forward and please enlighten me with any post other then the one I will quote below. Please Anita set the record straight for all of us who post here, or will your silence be a indicator that you might be making things up that never happened. Since Bob Betts suggests otherwise, it would be interesting for you to prove your accusations.


My one post regarding Bob Betts here at Walter Martin:

Quote:Russ.
OP topic, "Re:Richard demonstrates the fruit of his flesh. 5 Hours, 28 Minutes ago

Russ states,
Good for you for posting his thoughts, Bob. Keep them right here for people to see the bragging and boasting. Serves him right to have his M.O. revealed.

Libby, if you're reading, you are most sincerely in my prayers.
Your friend

My reply to Russ,

The above is Posted at CC, so it's not a private message.

Yes, Russ you got to see my thoughts, but you never got to see my full email to Bob, and he was quick to get back on line to twist even more of what I said personally to him. That Russ is your fearless leader, dishonest by not allowing me to post anything in defense of my self. I asked him personally to post all of my responses now, and gave him permission to do so. We will wait to see if he is the honest Christian you make him out to be.

If you have noticed, Libby responded with the truth, and I love her for that.
She is twice the person Bob Betts will ever hope to be. Libby does not lie.
What you did not realize Russ, was the private message to Bob was my concern that he was badgering Libby and she needed time to sort things out for herself. Not one LDS poster I know, has ever put any pressure on her to do this or do that. Interesting that Bob does not understand sensitivity. Libby never stated one way or another her decision to rejoin the LDS Church. So how can I gloat? if that is not happening to my knowledge Russ. Yes, I'm excited for her, mostly because she is doing it on her own.

Regards, Richard.

PS, Since you don't know the whole story, you don't know my MO.

So Anita, where is the back-biting you claim? I sent Bob Betts several emails, asking him to take off my private and personal email I sent. He posted it at CC for all to see and completely embar***ed me and Libby. I asked to be able to respond and defend myself, he shut me out completely and acted as a victim. He is being very, very dishonest here, and even Libby called him out on his deception, and that is the truth.

Richard.

[Richard]

Bob Betts;7541]Hi Libby, I hope you've forgiven me, as I asked at CC. I still very much love you, continue to trust God for your salvation.

Bob you call this loving someone else, I call it insensitivity. Wow, unbelievable and unreasonable.

Quoting Bob Betts from Concerned Christians:

It is not a matter of if Libby is still saved, but a matter of whether or not she ever was. The above scriptures are plain to US. Libby has returned to the vomit of Joseph Smith, to wallow in the mire of Joseph Smith. If she is truly one of the elect God, and the Holy Spirit DOES dwell in her, then she will eventually be gripped with the same conviction she had a couple of months ago about Joseph Smith, and leave Mormonism. If she is not one of the elect of God, she will likely remain in Mormonism, and suffer the same consequences at the judgment, as the rest of you who die believing Joseph Smith was a true prophet.

Consider that you don't get it, because an understanding of the scriptures is simply beyond your spiritual capabilities. They are spiritually discerned.

[Bob Betts]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---To be precise, what there is, is accusations. Where the speculation part enters in, is where people speculate that the accusations are true.

What I have presented to Libby is neither speculation, nor false accusations. What I have presented are undeniable, indisputable facts:

D&C 132:61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
There is no doubt that Smith married the four espoused women named on lds.org, who each belonged to someone else, being what this verse calls adultery.

62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
Those four named on lds.org belonged to their first husbands, at the time that Smith married them.

63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

Of all the reasons that I have heard given by LDS for plural marriage, this is the only one I've never heard given by any LDS: "to multiply and replenish the earth." This being the actual "law of the priesthood" reason, then how was it not the obligation of Joseph Smith to mate with every one of his plural wives, like a bunch of rabbits? And, if he did not, then he was in violation of the commandment.

What have I stated that is disputable by any LDS?

In Matt. 7:15-20, Jesus said, "Beware of false prophets."

How will we know them? "Ye shall know them by their fruits."

Then He asked a leading question: "Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?"

The answer is obviously 'no.' But, why would He ask?

Because, "Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit."

That's the clear cut truth which separates false prophets from true prophets.

And, just in case that isn't clear enough, Jesus removed all doubt about true prophets, "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit."

And, about false prophets, "neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. "

So, whatever good fruit that you LDS think that you can come up with about Joseph Smith, is irrelevant, because Jesus set the bar for "a good tree" being that he "cannot bring forth evil fruit."

Will any LDS dispute with me that the repeated, deliberate breaking of commandments would be the sort of evil fruit that Jesus was talking about?

Smith was at least guilty of repeated and deliberate adulteries, having married non-virgins, according to the so-called "law of the priesthood."

The Bible sure calls it adultery. Coveting thy neighbor's wife is also a sin. Nine of the first twelve plural wives of joseph Smith, were married women. See www.wivesofjosephsmith.org

Was that good fruit? Can a good prophet bring forth evil fruit? No, to both questions.

And, what befalls a prophet who brings forth evil fruit? Jesus said, "Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."

Was not Joseph Smith hewn down? Even the LDS church (CoC) of Smith's widow (Emma) believes that Smith was "a fallen prophet" because of the evil fruit he brought forth in his latter years before he was hewn down.

So Jesus finished His definition of a false prophet, the way he began, "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

By Joseph Smith's fruit, I know him. He clearly brought forth evil fruit with his multiple adulteries and covets of his neighbor's wives. He was one of the most clear cut false prophets of these latter days.

And, I still haven't touched on his false prophecies, except for the one which Whitmer told about in his own book.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---To be precise, what there is, is accusations. Where the speculation part enters in, is where people speculate that the accusations are true.

Jeff, Fig, Libby, and all our LDS Friends. I suggest we not respond to Bob Betts since he has kicked several of us off Concerned Christians and put into effect a censure of our remarks and the ability to defend ourselves. He should be allowed all the rights WM gives us as posters, but to me he has proven him self as a dishonest Christian. I asked to defend my self at CC for email he posted that was private, to this date he has not removed it or allowed me to tell my side of the story. I feel he should be ignored.

Richard.

[JDErickson]

Originally Posted by Richard

Jeff, Fig, Libby, and all our LDS Friends. I suggest we not respond to Bob Betts since he has kicked several of us off Concerned Christians and put into effect a censure of our remarks and the ability to defend ourselves. He should be allowed all the rights WM gives us as posters, but to me he has proven him self as a dishonest Christian. I asked to defend my self at CC for email he posted that was private, to this date he has not removed it or allowed me to tell my side of the story. I feel he should be ignored.

Richard.

Somedays I wonder if I really want to be Christian or Mormon. With examples of both sides here Scientology is looking enticing.

Both sides grow up and start loving your neighbor as yourself.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by JDErickson

Somedays I wonder if I really want to be Christian or Mormon. With examples of both sides here Scientology is looking enticing.

Both sides grow up and start loving your neighbor as yourself.

Thanks, good advise, for your information, I did email Bob and stated we could be friends, no response, interesting.

Richard.

[nrajeff]

I think your suggestion has merit, Richard--mostly for our sakes, not Bob's. You see, I can see myself telling him some things that I would probably later, at some point, regret having said.

[Sara]

Originally Posted by Richard

Bob you call this loving someone else, I call it insensitivity. Wow, unbelievable and unreasonable.

Quoting Bob Betts from Concerned Christians:

It is not a matter of if Libby is still saved, but a matter of whether or not she ever was. The above scriptures are plain to US. Libby has returned to the vomit of Joseph Smith, to wallow in the mire of Joseph Smith. If she is truly one of the elect God, and the Holy Spirit DOES dwell in her, then she will eventually be gripped with the same conviction she had a couple of months ago about Joseph Smith, and leave Mormonism. If she is not one of the elect of God, she will likely remain in Mormonism, and suffer the same consequences at the judgment, as the rest of you who die believing Joseph Smith was a true prophet.

Consider that you don't get it, because an understanding of the scriptures is simply beyond your spiritual capabilities. They are spiritually discerned.

I've seen you write much worse things than that, Richard. And yet, you think your freedom of speech is more valid than his.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Sara

I've seen you write much worse things than that, Richard. And yet, you think your freedom of speech is more valid than his.

Please quote me Sara. When I have been wrong I have apologized. Don't you think Bob should apologize for posting a private email, do you think I or Libby should have been embarr***ed for something which Libby did not want shared on CC. Anytime you want me to share the emails I sent Bob, just to show you he is lying will be fine with me. I asked Bob to allow me back on CC to defend myself, don't you think that someone who has nothing to hide should accommodate that request. After letting me give my side, he could than banish me again, no problem. So Sara, who is the one trying to get out the truth, me or Bob? What is he hiding from? By the way are you Anita?

[Sara]

Originally Posted by Richard

Please quote me Sara. When I have been wrong I have apologized. Don't you think Bob should apologize for posting a private email, do you think I or Libby should have been embarr***ed for something which Libby did not want shared on CC. Anytime you want me to share the emails I sent Bob, just to show you he is lying will be fine with me. I asked Bob to allow me back on CC to defend myself, don't you think that someone who has nothing to hide should accommodate that request. After letting me give my side, he could than banish me again, no problem. So Sara, who is the one trying to get out the truth, me or Bob? What is he hiding from? By the way are you Anita?

Post Script, Did I ever write anything like this, ---- Bob Betts, --- "Libby has returned to the vomit of Joseph Smith, to wallow in the mire of Joseph Smith. Nice try Sara, your defending a dishonest Christian man.

No, I'm not anita. But I've seen you write some very insulting things to people on other boards. I think it's disingenuous for you to try to pose as a victim.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Sara

No, I'm not anita. But I've seen you write some very insulting things to people on other boards. I think it's disingenuous for you to try to pose as a victim.

[COLOR="Green"][B]Before you finish accusing me, please back up your claim or retract your statement. How would you like it if I accused you of being immoral, and knew it because you wrote it or posted it. Wow, wouldn't you want me to provide the quotes. I make my point Sara. Apologize or produce. I did email Bob and stated we could be friends, no response, interesting. You never replied to, "Anytime you want me to share the emails I sent Bob, just to show you he is lying will be fine with me."

Richard.

[Sara]

[QUOTE=Richard;7670][COLOR="Green"][B]Before you finish accusing me, please back up your claim or retract your statement. How would you like it if I accused you of being immoral, and knew it because you wrote it or posted it. Wow, wouldn't you want me to provide the quotes. I make my point Sara. Apologize or produce. I did email Bob and stated we could be friends, no response, interesting. You never replied to, "Anytime you want me to share the emails I sent Bob, just to show you he is lying will be fine with me."

Richard.


(edit by mod)

[Bob Betts]

Staying on topic...

Either Mormons need to state a belief that the frequent and deliberate violations of commandments, as Joseph Smith was clearly guilty of, is good fruit, or admit that Joseph Smith brought forth evil fruit, making him a false prophet, according to Jesus definition of one.

Jesus is the one who set the "prophet" bar so very high, saying "A good tree [prophet] CANNOT bring forth evil fruit." And, Joseph Smith brought forth LOTS of evil fruit, marrying non-virgins, against the so-called LDS "law of the priesthood," but not having normal marital relations with them in order to obey the "law of the priesthood" commandment "to multiply and replenish the earth."

I can see why Mormons would rather talk about me, than Joseph Smith's true character, which Christ exposed as a false prophet. But, I'm not supposed to be the subject of this thread...Smith is.

I can also understand why Mormons can't be honest about the real Joseph Smith, and honor Christ's command to "Beware of false prophets." It would mean the end of Mormonism. So, when Jesus said, "You will know them by their fruits," they would rather take that out of Christ's context of how to identify false prophets, and apply it as a proof-text for the Mormon people being Christians, because of their good works.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Sara

Quoting you is a little difficult when most of your posts look like this, just before you get suspended:

(edit by mod)

Sara a couple of questions, first what was your ID name before you came here or what did you go by on whatever site you seem to know me from.

I notice you got deleted, why don't you PM me with whatever quote you feel I was offensive about.

Who is Anita?

Richard.

[Richard]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Bob Betts

Staying on topic...

Either Mormons need to state a belief that the frequent and deliberate violations of commandments, as Joseph Smith was clearly guilty of, is good fruit, or admit that Joseph Smith brought forth evil fruit, making him a false prophet, according to Jesus definition of one.

Interesting that Bob does not mention all the fruits he feels Joseph is guilty of. What is also interesting is that we have past Prophets in the Bible who were guilty of sin, yet they produced good fruits. Mosses openly disobeyed God, and was not allowed into the promised Land, Abraham and others had multiply wives which Bob loves to ignore.

Jesus is the one who set the "prophet" bar so very high, saying "A good tree [prophet] CANNOT bring forth evil fruit."

So what did Christ really state:

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees
come to his baptism, he said unto them,
O generation of vipers,
who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
And think not to say within yourselves,
We have Abraham to our father:
for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones
to raise up children unto Abraham.
And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees:
therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit
is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Matt 3:7-10

And, Joseph Smith brought forth LOTS of evil fruit, marrying non-virgins, against the so-called LDS "law of the priesthood," but not having normal marital relations with them in order to obey the "law of the priesthood" commandment "to multiply and replenish the earth."

Jacob 2:30: "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."

Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), eight types of family structures are described without any being condemned. Some involve concubines and multiple wives. For example, Esau had 3 wives, Jacob: 2, Ashur: 2, Elkanah: 2, Solomon: 700, Rehaboam: 3, and Abijah had 14. Ahab, Belshazzar, David, Gideon, Jeholachin, Jehoram, and Joash also had multiple wives. Solomon also had hundreds of concubines. Other Hebrew leaders in the Bible had concubines as well.

In the Doctrines and Covenants, Section 132, God ***igns a positive value to polygamy. This revelation was allegedly given to Joseph Smith and recorded on 1843-JUL-12:
3: "...all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same."

4: "For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye ****ed; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory."

6: "...he that receiveth a fullness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be ****ed...."
God reviews the many figures in the Hebrew scriptures who had concubines and/or were involved in plural marriages: Abraham, David, Solomon, Moses and many others.
God commands Joseph Smith's wife, Emma, to follow this commandment or be destroyed.
God introduces the "law of the priesthood": that a man can, with the approval of his first wife, marry one or more other women without committing adultery "...for they belong to him and they are given onto him...":

61: "....if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else."
62: "And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified."

Genesis 16:1-4: "Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived..." (King James Version)

A person must embrace plural marriage as a divine and holy principle in order to receive eternal life. President John Taylor noted:

"Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God. It was a revelation given unto Joseph Smith from God, and was made binding upon His servants. When this system was first introduced among this people, it was one of the greatest crosses that ever was taken up by any set of men since the world stood. Joseph Smith told others; he told me, and I can bear witness of it, "that if this principle was not introduced, this Church and kingdom could not proceed." When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them. When I see any of our people, men or women, opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on the high road to apostacy, and I do to-day; I consider them apostates, and not interested in this Church and kingdom." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.221)

I am not aware of any member of the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles who has ever said anything contradicting President Taylor's words. However, while the Lord desires us to accept the doctrine of plural marriage, he does not always desire his people to actually practice it. For example, the Book of Mormon peoples were specifically forbidden to practice plural marriage. (Jacob 2). Therefore, we know that plural marriage is not an ordinance like baptism that must be practiced in mortality to be saved. However, it is a celestial doctrine, and those whose hearts are not pure enough to accept the doctrine are not pure enough to dwell in the celestial kingdom as an exalted being.

Those who break the commandments of God cannot be saved. Since there are times when the Lord commands his people not to enter into plural marriage (e.g., Book of Mormon times; today), we know that there are times when we will be ****ed for practicing it, even though the doctrine is eternal. Likewise, since there are times when the Lord commands his people to practice plural marriage (e.g., Abraham's time; 1830's-1904), we know that there are times when we will be ****ed for not practicing it. The key to salvation on this matter is to always believe and espouse the principles, but only practice it at the command of the Lord, through his appointed prophets.
by W. John Walsh

I can see why Mormons would rather talk about me, than Joseph Smith's true character, which Christ exposed as a false prophet. But, I'm not supposed to be the subject of this thread...Smith is.

Well I guess you must have taken me off ignore, Bob Betts. Maybe you can share with us where Christ exposed Joseph as a false Prophet?

I can also understand why Mormons can't be honest about the real Joseph Smith, and honor Christ's command to "Beware of false prophets." It would mean the end of Mormonism. So, when Jesus said, "You will know them by their fruits," they would rather take that out of Christ's context of how to identify false prophets, and apply it as a proof-text for the Mormon people being Christians, because of their good works.

I also can't understand why Bob Betts feels that we live in a day and age when Prophets are not needed. It is obvious by the Scriptures that someone must be the spokes person for God, and have the keys of the Kingdom whenever acting in the name of God. Confusion reins on the earth, and we see no one at the helm of the Evangelical Movement, there is no unity of Faith and they deny the power of God, (Priesthood), and essential ordinances that are required to enter back into the Kingdom of God. Hence we Preach, Faith, Repentance, Baptism, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost as was taught in NT times.

Richard.

[Sara]

Originally Posted by Richard

Sara a couple of questions, first what was your ID name before you came here or what did you go by on whatever site you seem to know me from.

I notice you got deleted, why don't you PM me with whatever quote you feel I was offensive about.

Who is Anita?

Richard.

I've always been Sara.

My post said that it was difficult to quote you because your posts always just read "edited by mod," right before you were suspended.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Sara

I've always been Sara.

My post said that it was difficult to quote you because your posts always just read "edited by mod," right before you were suspended.

Most likely Sara, since you are so quick to bare false witness, I was deleted because I quoted from a unauthorized source which is against the rules at CARM. I also got deleted and booted twice when the Quote was from a CARM member who used uncivil language that I got blamed for, yet it was not me who said anything wrong. Just by using his or her reply, I got booted, interesting administrator they have at CARM.

Richard.


Post Script, so what was your ID name at CARM?

[Sara]

Originally Posted by Richard

Most likely Sara, since you are so quick to bare false witness, I was deleted because I quoted from a unauthorized source which is against the rules at CARM. I also got deleted and booted twice when the Quote was from a CARM member who used uncivil language that I got blamed for, yet it was not me who said anything wrong. Just by using his or her reply, I got booted, interesting administrator they have at CARM.

Richard.


Post Script, so what was your ID name at CARM?

No, it's never your fault, is it Richard.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Sara

No, it's never your fault, is it Richard.

Again you must have missed the many times I have apologized Sara. I apologized when I used different names, I was ashamed of my deception, I told Bob we could still be friends, so what do you mean It is always my fault Sara? Not once have I received a sorry, or an apology.

Are you deflecting or do you have a Id name at CARM. Just tell me no, if you want to keep it a secret.

R.