WHO has more authority than I do

[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]

Originally Posted by MickeyS

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]

Originally Posted by MickeyS

"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=lR...isters&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]

Originally Posted by 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]

Originally Posted by 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]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

( https://books.google.com/books?id=lR...isters&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]

Originally Posted by 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?....