WHO has more authority than I do

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by MickeyS

.... 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]

Originally Posted by MickeyS

.... 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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by MickeyS

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=lR...isters&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]

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?....

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by 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]

Originally Posted by 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 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]

Originally Posted by MickeyS

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]

Originally Posted by MickeyS

.....Excellent, thanks for clearing that up

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.

[MickeyS]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

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