Off shoots

[John T]

Originally Posted by Dante

Am I missing something or did you seriously just make bold faced accusations in regard to this and then provide links to articles that absolutely refute it?

Did you even bother reading those articles?

From the article: (confirmed via DNA research – November 2007)
"For 160 years people have been writing in books or speculating that these people could have been Joseph Smith's children. When people write something in a book, many people refer to that almost as a fact. Brodie went on and on about Buell, talking about the timing and the picture — everything seems to indicate Buell was Joseph Smith's son. But the DNA says otherwise."

AND:
"The list of approximately 12 people alleged to have been Smith's children "may grow over time," Perego said, noting historical documents continue to surface. "I'm not saying the list I have is definitive or complete at all. But out of those we have data for, there is no evidence from DNA at this point that Joseph Smith had any children from women other than Emma Smith."

Historians have previously identified eight possible children of Joseph Smith borne by his plural wives. As of November 2007, DNA testing has shown that [ONLY] three of these eight children were not fathered by Joseph Smith. Two other children died as infants and therefore left no posterity. DNA testing is underway or remains a possiblity for the the remaining three. They are listed below, along with the traditionally recognized mother and father:

[Dante]

"... there is no evidence from DNA at this point that Joseph Smith had any children from women other than Emma Smith."

[Richard]

[QUOTE=BrianH;13117]Wrong Rich ...the simple FACT is, Smith did not get a marriage certificate is because it was illegal for him to be married to other men's wives, not because it was part of doctrine that "I never read", nor anyone else ever read. In fact it is not part of any "doctrine" outside the doctrines of the Mormon imagination. Secondly, MANY people have marriage certificates resulting from civil marriages. So as usual, you are either ignorant or lying.

Get a life and join the world of the what, how and why of Polyandry as given unto Joseph, which was in no way the Polyandry you might want your little anti-book to be believed. Which to say, no other then a dunce such as the gullible Brian, who has never researched any thing in his life, including reading the Book of Mormon. If you can provide a marriage certificate, license or witnesses of a civil marriage, then guess what Brian, you may have a case if then you can prove sexual relations. Since you only have a religious sealing, the Law could care less, so the proof is still your problem, if you want to be considered credible, prove what you claim.

You never quoted me anything other than the product of the Mormon imagination. What these OTHER dupes and victims of Smith's deceptions fell for is immaterial. The FACT is they let their wives be married (or sealed) to another man for eternity - at least in their imaginations. That they did such a thing only shows the depth of their deception and their gullibility.

What I quoted you was a spiritual law, not the law of the land, which you seem to have problems separating. Sealing in no way could be considered polyandry, if you want to state otherwise then you risk accusing Joseph of a crime that never even existed. All of these wives continued to remain married to their husbands, and continued to live with them. For whatever reason they allowed their wives to be sealed for eternity is not clear, but the fact that we only have sketchy history and nothing other then that these sealing took place, we still have nothing indicating a immoral relationship, so what is the big deal partner.

R.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by John T

Historians have previously identified eight possible children of Joseph Smith borne by his plural wives. As of November 2007, DNA testing has shown that [ONLY] three of these eight children were not fathered by Joseph Smith. Two other children died as infants and therefore left no posterity. DNA testing is underway or remains a possiblity for the the remaining three. They are listed below, along with the traditionally recognized mother and father:

Oh, the stupid things we believe when we refuse to look at cold facts.

We clearly see, the non-mormons, (critics), have again and again dug up old antiquated and sensationalized materials that when trotted out, only provide stale, unreliable and unsubstantiated claims. We have learned from both Brian and John, their work and research is disturbed by its dissonances. Lack of agreement is consistent with the whom, how and why of their source materials, which we have show time and time is out of harmony with historical facts or lack of facts and evidence which conflict with their lame claims.

[John T]

Originally Posted by Richard

We clearly see, the non-mormons, (critics), have again and again dug up old antiquated and sensationalized materials...

LOL Since when is 2007 "antiquated"?

[BrianH]

And even if it WAS 'antiquated', what Rich does not seem to be able to grasp is that just because information is OLD does not mean it is INCORRECT. By Rich's standards, the BoM is necessarily FALSE because its content is almost 200 years old. (That's 200 times older than what you posted John).

-BH

.

[BrianH]

Get a life and join the world of the what, how and why of Polyandry as given unto Joseph, which was in no way the Polyandry you might want your little anti-book to be believed.

Wake up and realize that neither YOU nor yoru boy Joseph Smith have the authority to invent the laws of polygamy and polyandry to suit your selves.

What I quoted you was a spiritual law, not the law of the land...

Nonsense. What you quoted was Joseph Smith's invention as a means to cover his **** after his polygamy was exposed. The law of the land (the US) held polygamy as illegal. Your lame attempt to equivocate "sealing" as irrelevant to marriage is an AMZING display of the kind of mental anguish that Mormons must impose on themselves.

-BH

[Richard]

Originally Posted by John T

LOL Since when is 2007 "antiquated"?

Very good John, so how is it going with the DNA? So far good buddy zippo results showing any children. My, my, friend, 30 some supposed marriages, and no children, amazing. No Birth control pills and zippo kids to show for it.
Yea, you got a whole bunch of evidence.

Oh, the stupid things we believe when we refuse to look at cold facts.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by BrianH

Wake up and realize that neither YOU nor yoru boy Joseph Smith have the authority to invent the laws of polygamy and polyandry to suit your selves.

Invent what laws slicko? Joseph never committed polyandry. I could start a new organization tomorrow and claim that a sealing to other mens wives was a religious rite, and not be in any harms way with the law, as long as it was not a legal civil marriage.


Nonsense. What you quoted was Joseph Smith's invention as a means to cover his **** after his polygamy was exposed. The law of the land (the US) held polygamy as illegal. Your lame attempt to equivocate "sealing" as irrelevant to marriage is an AMZING display of the kind of mental anguish that Mormons must impose on themselves.

-BH

Invention? where did you glean that from? If I remember right, it was years after that the law was p***ed on polygamy. In 1862, Congress issued the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act which clarified that the practice of polygamy was illegal in all U.S. territories. Was it illegal in Illinois, yes. What you have failed to prove is the marriage itself, were these marriages consummated with the first act of sexual intercourse after the ceremony, or were these marriages eternal and celestial marriages? Since you can not provide any historical documents to prove evidence one way or the other, you can only speculate.

R.

[BrianH]

Invent what laws slicko?

The laws governing marriage

Joseph never committed polyandry.

No ...he just married other men's wives.

What you have failed to prove is the marriage itself, were these marriages consummated with the first act of sexual intercourse after the ceremony, or were these marriages eternal and celestial marriages?

Why does that alleged distinction between two types of 'marriages' somehow amount to a distinction between 'marriage' and the NON-marriage which you want us to think is what Smith did. And why would these women not want to be "sealed" to their own Mormon-God husbands? Why was Smith out taking all those women for HIMSELF? No matter how you try to obscure it, Rich - your "prophet" was a punk.

Invention? where did you glean that from?

From the FACT that 100% of all of this nonsense comes from Joseph Smith HIMSELF. I challenge you to show me any distinctions between marriage and marriage-called-"sealings" anywhere outside the rhetoric of Smith and his followers.

Face it, Rich. Your boy Smith was just makin' stuff up to suit his own fancy.

-BH

.

[Richard]

Quote:
Invent what laws slicko?
The laws governing marriage

Oh, thats right, mans laws.

Joseph never committed polyandry.
No ...he just married other men's wives.

Show me the evidence partner, were they sealings or marriages? interesting that you fail to ever provide any evidence to back up you claims. Gosh, darn, it must be frustrating to find that your little anti books are so limited in helping you as you furiously flip the pages, cussing that you just can't find any evidence.

Quote:
What you have failed to prove is the marriage itself, were these marriages consummated with the first act of sexual intercourse after the ceremony, or were these marriages eternal and celestial marriages?
Why does that alleged distinction between two types of 'marriages' somehow amount to a distinction between 'marriage' and the NON-marriage which you want us to think is what Smith did. And why would these women not want to be "sealed" to their own Mormon-God husbands? Why was Smith out taking all those women for HIMSELF? No matter how you try to obscure it, Rich - your "prophet" was a punk.

Well good buddy, where are all the children that would make your point valid. Interesting that this continues to be a huge stumbling block, and yet you continue to believe that Joseph could be that well practiced, and with out any Birth control pills, to never have slipped up even once, as we so far have no evidence of DNA proof. I tend to believe that sealings are not what most intelligent people would consider a civil marriage, but again I can't get in your closed mind.

Quote:
Invention? where did you glean that from?
From the FACT that 100% of all of this nonsense comes from Joseph Smith HIMSELF. I challenge you to show me any distinctions between marriage and marriage-called-"sealings" anywhere outside the rhetoric of Smith and his followers.

Face it, Rich. Your boy Smith was just makin' stuff up to suit his own fancy.

-BH

No Brian, the challenge is back at you, you made the claim of marrying other mens wives, so with that definition good buddy, would that not mean sexual relations also. Would that not entail adultery?
Would that not most likely mean children. Speculation is a wonderful way to claim something you cannot prove. Speculation Brian, is your forte. Frustrating I imagine.

R.

[BrianH]

Oh, thats right, mans laws.

which is what I refrred to when I said that Smith's multiple marriages were against "THE" "LAW" "OF" "THE LAND", genius.

Show me the evidence partner, were they sealings or marriages? interesting that you fail to ever provide any evidence to back up you claims. Gosh, darn, it must be frustrating to find that your little anti books are so limited in helping you as you furiously flip the pages, cussing that you just can't find any evidence.

Again you pretend to draw a distinction between "marriage" and "sealing". The sources for Smith's many marriages are published (much to the discomfort of the LDS) in many books and all over the internet. Those reports are drawn from first-hand accounts of the participants and witnesses to Smith's many marriages.

Well good buddy, where are all the children that would make your point valid.

Logical fallacy: Argument from silence. First of all, there need not be children resulting from every marriage. Secondly, there are those who SELF-proclaim as being children of your "prophet", as well as DNA research that has allowed for at least a few such children - though you will predictably just beg more questions regarding them, so what's the point?

No Brian, the challenge is back at you, you made the claim of marrying other mens wives, so with that definition good buddy, would that not mean sexual relations also.

"The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" (Journal of Discourses 11:269)

Whom shall we believe ...YOU or LDS "prophet" Brigham Young?

-BH

.

[John T]

Originally Posted by Richard

Very good John, so how is it going with the DNA? So far good buddy zippo results showing any children. My, my, friend, 30 some supposed marriages, and no children, amazing. No Birth control pills and zippo kids to show for it.
Yea, you got a whole bunch of evidence.

Yes, I accounted for merely five DNA proofs (provided by LAB RESULTS in the ancient year of 2007).

What Richard fails to see is the proved presence of just one child of Joseph Smith's "love children", (and there are five times that) is proof of the almost certain probability of being more. That is elementary logic, and elementary reasoning.

By Richard's resorting to a hypothetical distinction between "sealing" and "marriage", he demonstrates the futile nature of his argument. He would need to demonstrate just one proof where a bride was "sealed", but not "married" and if perchance if that distinction holds, he deeds to provide proof that the "sealed" bride did not experience the consummation of that sealing, but was never married.

Another hurdle for Richard to overcome in his distinction without a difference is that he needs to demonstrate that the priest really did not mean it in the ceremony, and that the sealings were therefore, by definition bogus. For example, the “sealer” pronounces a fixed set of ceremonial words. Instead of ending with “till death do you part,” the ceremony ends with “for time and all eternity.”

SEALING=MARRIAGE it is that simple, Richard

Richard's false distinction is born out in this clip from the Mormon Encyclopedia

The sealing together of husband, wife, and children in eternal family units is the culminating ordinance of the priesthood, to which all others are preparatory. It must be performed by one holding the sealing power and today in an LDS temple dedicated to God

From the above, it is obvious that either Richard does not understand Mormonism, as he purports to do or that he is deliberately trying to mislead people here; you know: prevaricate.

ARE YOUR PANTS ON FIRE, RICHARD?????

[Richard]

[QUOTE=John T;13381]Yes, I accounted for merely five DNA proofs (provided by LAB RESULTS in the ancient year of 2007).

What Richard fails to see is the proved presence of just one child of Joseph Smith's "love children", (and there are five times that) is proof of the almost certain probability of being more. That is elementary logic, and elementary reasoning.

John states, "Historians have previously identified eight possible children of Joseph Smith borne by his plural wives. As of November 2007, DNA testing has shown that [ONLY] three of these eight children were not fathered by Joseph Smith. Two other children died as infants and therefore left no posterity. DNA testing is underway or remains a possibility for the the remaining three. They are listed below, along with the traditionally recognized mother and father"

Elementary Logic, and Elementary Reasoning.

Eight Possible,
Remain a possibility
Certain probability

Need I say anymore

By Richard's resorting to a hypothetical distinction between "sealing" and "marriage", he demonstrates the futile nature of his argument. He would need to demonstrate just one proof where a bride was "sealed", but not "married" and if perchance if that distinction holds, he deeds to provide proof that the "sealed" bride did not experience the consummation of that sealing, but was never married.

I love John's logic, it contains a lot of possible, possibilities, speculative reasoning.

Compton does not specify or quantify or document his generalized conclusion that "in a significant number" of these plural marriages Joseph Smith had sexual contact with his partner. If by "significant" Compton implies that a majority of these marriages had what he terms the "sexual dimension," his statement is not supported by the data he presents. This is an example of many questionable conclusions in this book that are overly broad, nonspecific, or undocumented.

So John turns the debate upside down, and makes it my responsibility to prove that the marriage was nothing more then a sealing. Interesting, I must now imagine that both John and Brian have sorted through all there talking points, anti- books, and favorite enemies of the Church and come up with zippo evidence.
But logic and elementary reasoning is now there proof, Interesting. I love Brian's statement, I quote, "Please deny this, cuz I am prepared to humiliate you again under a mountain of evidence for you to then just deny. So John and Brian, why the speculation, logic, and reasoning? where is the meat? Is the fact that, possible, possibilities, and specualtative reasoning is what your prepared to use to humiliate me?

Another hurdle for Richard to overcome in his distinction without a difference is that he needs to demonstrate that the priest really did not mean it in the ceremony, and that the sealings were therefore, by definition bogus. For example, the “sealer” pronounces a fixed set of ceremonial words. Instead of ending with “till death do you part,” the ceremony ends with “for time and all eternity.”

SEALING=MARRIAGE it is that simple, Richard

Not my hurdle good buddy, God's doctrine of eternal marriage. God apparently does not recognize earthly marriages as being forever. I understood it well enough to want a eternal mate, my wife.
Prevaricate? Show where i have straddled the fence in my defense of LDS Doctrine.

Richard's false distinction is born out in this clip from the Mormon Encyclopedia From the above, it is obvious that either Richard does not understand Mormonism, as he purports to do or that he is deliberately trying to mislead people here; you know: prevaricate.

ARE YOUR PANTS ON FIRE, RICHARD?????

John, it's not my problem that your many anti-books can't help you out, and it will now take some personal research on your part to go beyond what you use as simple talking points.

I leave you with words of wisdom from Mossier and Owens, two of your guys, ----

"Many of the authors promote criticisms that have long been refuted; some are sensationalistic while others are simply ridiculous. A number of these books claim to be "the definitive" book on the matter. That they make no attempt to interact with contemporary LDS scholarship is a stain upon the authors' integrity and causes one to wonder about their credibility."

[John T]

Originally Posted by Richard

----

Do you EVER get tired of distortion?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by John T

Do you EVER get tired of distortion?

What is humorous John, is the feeble attempts at finding any hard evidence or facts to support anything you criticize us for. Most of the time we get snippets, sensationalism, and LDS Doctrine stated incorrectly. Where or where is your credibility. Brian claims the Book of Mormon is a Fairy-tail, and yet admits to never having read it. Interesting indeed, but not creditable.

You accuse me of distortion? you accuse me of Prevaricating? Show where i have straddled the fence in my defense of LDS Doctrine?

Regards, Richard.

[John T]

Originally Posted by Richard

What is humorous John, is the feeble attempts at finding any hard evidence or facts to support anything you criticize us for. Most of the time we get snippets, sensationalism, and LDS Doctrine stated incorrectly. Where or where is your credibility. Brian claims the Book of Mormon is a Fairy-tail, and yet admits to never having read it. Interesting indeed, but not creditable.

You accuse me of distortion? you accuse me of Prevaricating? Show where i have straddled the fence in my defense of LDS Doctrine?

Regards, Richard.

No, Richard

It is you who are taking the illogical position, but I also should have explained better. I was speaking in statistical terms, therefore the phrase "near certain probibility" was taken out if the contest the phrase is designed to convey. In numbers, the phrase means >99.99% of happening. In other words, the possibility if a negative is extremely small.

With that in mind, AND given the proved ancestry of at least one bona fide love child of JS, there is an extremely likely chance that there are other children he sired, including others not examined via DNA.

And I do not need to read the BoM to know that it is a fairy tale; all I have to do is take a short trip to Palmyra and see nothing in the Visitors Center or on the hill.

OTOH if you believe the BoM is true, show me some coreloms, neas, sheums, elephants or comoms, all of which were useful...

[Richard]

Originally Posted by John T

No, Richard

It is you who are taking the illogical position, but I also should have explained better. I was speaking in statistical terms, therefore the phrase "near certain probibility" was taken out if the contest the phrase is designed to convey. In numbers, the phrase means >99.99% of happening. In other words, the possibility if a negative is extremely small.

With that in mind, AND given the proved ancestry of at least one bona fide love child of JS, there is an extremely likely chance that there are other children he sired, including others not examined via DNA.

And I do not need to read the BoM to know that it is a fairy tale; all I have to do is take a short trip to Palmyra and see nothing in the Visitors Center or on the hill.

OTOH if you believe the BoM is true, show me some coreloms, neas, sheums, elephants or comoms, all of which were useful...

Interesting good buddy that the possibilities of 30 some ***umed marriages, now narrows down to only a possibility of some children that we are waiting the DNA evidence on. Five of twelve children that Joseph Smith, Jr. allegedly fathered by plural wives have been proven by DNA not to be his children.

"Although it has been alleged that Joseph Smith may have had children by his wives other than Emma (most historians believe he married at least thirty-three women, and probably as many as forty-eight) , DNA investigations in three cases have established that their biological father is in fact Smith's wives' other husbands. Additionally, the DNA research, so far, has failed to confirm Smith's paternity for any children other than those borne by his legal spouse, Emma." Perego, Ugo A.; Myers, Natalie M.; and Woodward, Scott R. (2005-05-29). "Reconstructing the Y-Chromosome of Joseph Smith Jr.: Genealogical Applications

Perego showed part of a list of alleged children of Joseph Smith through other wives. The DNA of a number of the alleged children was identified and compared:

Moroni Pratt was not his child, contrary to what Fawn Brodie speculated in her critical biography of Joseph Smith, "No Man Knows My History."

Zebulon Jacobs was not his child.

Oliver Norman Buell was claimed by Brodie to be a son of Joseph Smith. She had compared his photograph with Joseph Smith III. "Even the hairstyle was the same," Perego said, eliciting some laughter from the crowd. But notwithstanding the physical similarities, Buell was not Smith's child.

Mosiah L. Han**** was not his child either.

Using other DNA tests, Perego also hopes to determine whether Josephine Rosetta Lyon is a daughter of Joseph Smith. So far he has collected 120 DNA samples from her descendants. He says they should know in the "next year or so."

[Richard]

Originally Posted by John T

OTOH if you believe the BoM is true, show me some coreloms, neas, sheums, elephants or comoms, all of which were useful...

Since neither one of us can prove or disprove the above, it really becomes irrelevant friend. Frustrating isn't it? What will you say if someday the other records that the BOM was abridged from are discovered? My hunch is that you will still deny the facts and evidence, and move on to another talking point.

R.

[John T]

Originally Posted by Richard

Since neither on of us can prove or disprove the above, it really becomes irrelevant friend. Frustrating isn't it? What will you say if someday the other records that the BOM was abridged from are discovered? My hunch is that you will still deny the facts and evidence, and move on to another talking point.

R.

You are the one who believes contrary to facts. Richard.

People like you believe that a "Maalox moment" aka "burning bosom" supersedes all reason and evidence to the contrary. That is akin to building theological castles in the air, for no castles float on air, and no one but the giant in Jack in the bean stalk can live there. And that is the essence of LDSism; at its heart it is irrational.

We can go to the Middle East and see cities mentioned in our Scripture, Mormons can't.

We can trace things via DNA, Mormons can't.

Christians can see ancient battlefields, and relics from them, Mormons can't.

Christians can see rivers mentioned in our Scripture Mormons can't

There are so much more things that are missing from your castle-in-the-air religion that to believe that it cons***utes credible truth is to make unfounded leap into the realm of the neurotic or delusional. As I learned with my dealings with the seriously mentally ill, "Delusions do not exist, so do not debate them."

In this case, I am not debating them as you seem to wish; instead, I am merely affirming their non-existence and let you live in those castles in the air that you create in Mormonism.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by John T

You are the one who believes contrary to facts. Richard.

People like you believe that a "Maalox moment" aka "burning bosom" supersedes all reason and evidence to the contrary. That is akin to building theological castles in the air, for no castles float on air, and no one but the giant in Jack in the bean stalk can live there. And that is the essence of LDSism; at its heart it is irrational.

We can go to the Middle East and see cities mentioned in our Scripture, Mormons can't.

We can trace things via DNA, Mormons can't.

Christians can see ancient battlefields, and relics from them, Mormons can't.

Christians can see rivers mentioned in our Scripture Mormons can't

There are so much more things that are missing from your castle-in-the-air religion that to believe that it cons***utes credible truth is to make unfounded leap into the realm of the neurotic or delusional. As I learned with my dealings with the seriously mentally ill, "Delusions do not exist, so do not debate them."

In this case, I am not debating them as you seem to wish; instead, I am merely affirming their non-existence and let you live in those castles in the air that you create in Mormonism.

You're absolutely correct John. Never heard of it as a Maalox moment, but humorous never the less. What I do agree with you on is that my personal testimony, given of the Holy Ghost, that Jesus is the Christ, does supersede all other evidence.

Cities in the Middle East mentioned in the Bible, ---- does not supersede my testimony that Jesus is the Christ.
Tracing DNA all you want ---- does not supersede my testimony that Jesus is the Christ.
Ancient Battlefields, and relics from them ---- does not supersede my testimony that Jesus is the Christ.
Rivers ---- does not supersede my testimony that Jesus is the Christ

My question to you, John, where do you get your testimony that Jesus is the Christ? I would rather gladly endure the burning bosom, then have to rely on relics left in the dirt of time. Just my opinion good buddy.

R.

[GraftedIn73]

Originally Posted by Richard

... Yes, Joseph had other mens wives sealed to him, so what? they never slept with him, that is if, "if", you can produce some creditable evidence to show otherwise. Please provide evidence that Joseph slept with any of the women who were, SEALED, to him...

Hi Richard, Just a question... what would be the purpose of these women being sealed to Joseph Smith, rather than their own husbands?

GI73

[Richard]

But the problem you guys face is that your founding "prophet" both taught and clearly lived out the example of marrying adolescent girls and the wives of other men and he attributed his practices and teachings to God himself. While this is not currently "official doctrine" of the LDS it absolutely was the official doctrine of your founding prophet who blamed it on God. That makes Joseph Smith a FALSE prophet even when compared to your own (LDS) current doctrine.

-BH

Obviously Brian wants his readers to believe that plural marriages and ***ociated doctrines were little more than rationalizations for sexual immorality. Yet when asked to prove it, he wavers and deflects since there is little history that validates his lame criticism. He cannot prove adultery, can not show civil marriage versus Celestial unions, etc, etc. Frustration is setting in, and his flippant judgmental accusations are with out facts or evidence.

R.

[Russ]

Snow, those you call offshoots have much in common with LDSism. Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, polygamy, temples and temple rituals. It's difficult to examine the details of these secretive societies. (Well, LDSism isn't that hard to examine. Just Google "LDS temple rituals" and up comes a million hits.)

It's interesting to note that all Mormon sects point their fingers at other Mormon sects saying that all other Mormon sects aren't Mormon. Each one states they are the true Mormons. Each one knows that they are right.

Christians of all flavors know that David Koresh was a cult leader.

(So is Joel Olsteen, by the way.)

[Dante]

Originally Posted by Russ

It's interesting to note that all Mormon sects point their fingers at other Mormon sects saying that all other Mormon sects aren't Mormon. Each one states they are the true Mormons. Each one knows that they are right.

Christians of all flavors know that David Koresh was a cult leader.

(So is Joel Olsteen, by the way.)

Humorous. David Koresh taught Biblical Christianity according to his interpretation (as does Joel Olsteen) and I suspect each think they were/are right and point to "fundamentalist/mainstream Christianity" as not true as they interpret it.

Just as liberal Christians believe they have it right to accept ****sexuality, ordaining women/gays as pastors, some saying baptism is necessary, some saying not so, etc, etc.

Maybe you need to abandon your Ministry Against Mormonism then and start concentrating on your own, as it seems while you are on full frontal attack on the LDS your own backyard gate is open.

I just read an article online that reports on the issue of "Musical Pews" (i.e.) the trend of Christians quitting one sect and joining another, sometimes leaving Christianity for Judaism, etc.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...ical-pews.html

An excerpt from that article:

"When a little girl has a Jewish grandparent and the teacher says Jews are going to hell, it's not conducive to a sense of belonging," Talmadge explains. She stopped going to church as soon as she could and eventually found her own spiritual path.

"I do believe in God, and our spirituality is inherent in who we are," she says. "Religion is man-made dogma … Spirituality is God-made. Spiritual practice for me is very individualized."

And there are a couple more stories; one individual who felt correct "Christian" doctrine wasn't being taught and prayed about in his "Christina" sect so sought out another "Christian" sect that was closer to his beliefs... but we know there is no variance between all the Christina sects and that all of their doctrines line up, don't we?

(You'd like to think there are no ****ogous comparisons of LDS offshoots and aberrant Christian sects, but you would be wrong)

Better stop the bleeding...