He just keeps opening up one curtain after another to let more and more light in.

Make fun out of it all you want, but at the end of the argument, you have to decide of you are interested in following God or something else; that is, are you really willing to pick up that cross and follow Him?

 

Well, seeing the relationship I already have with the savior and how I follow him everyday and try to help those as he did,  I wouldn't want to step back down to your level, since, I have not really seen you present anything worthwhile to switch too.  

All I've heard you say, incorrectly, is how terrible my church is.  

I typically try to avoid associating with dishonest hypocritical people.  

Christ tells us in the Bible to avoid such.


If God is as merciful and just as you claim he is,  I'll take my chances with following his teachings in the Bible.  I don't believe he is a petty God like you do that will punish people for following him and doing his will.

I enjoy your apologetics of the LDS church; I hope I'm asking honest and fair questions.

You are.  Most people are like you.  They may have heard things about the Mormon church and have sincere honest questions.

Others though, could care less about honesty.  They hate the Mormon church, and will stoop to any dishonest means to slander it in the name of "helping poor lost souls".  They could care less what the actual beliefs are, and instead rely on tactics like pulling up some random journal entry from 150 years ago and claim it is Mormon's core doctrine.  


When people ask sincere questions, we do our best to answer.



It's when shysters try and tell us incorrectly what we believe, that it becomes a nuisance.  

They are kind of like houseflies.   Lots of buzz,  kind of annoying, they love to roll around in crap, but otherwise they really have no effect or apparent purpose, and cause no harm.

I guess the fat lady sang or was it Don Meredith................

Since the peep stone thing was brought up...  and then there was mention of the Urim and Thummin...

Prophets did not have or use the Urim and Thummin.  Priests did.  

Ex 28:30 And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron’s heart, when he goeth in before the LORD: and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the LORD continually.


Le 8:8 And he put the breastplate upon him: also he put in the breastplate the Urim and the Thummim.

Aaron was the priest, of course, and the verses above refer to him.


Nu 27:21 And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall ask counsel for him after the judgment of Urim before the LORD: at his word shall they go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he, and all the children of Israel with him, even all the congregation.


De 33:8 And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah;

(The Levites were the priests of Israel.)

1Sa 28:6 And when Saul enquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.

(The verse above distinguishes the two from each other.)

Ezr 2:63 And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim.

Ne 7:65 And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim.

And God did not deliver His word through priests, but through prophets.

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets  

Not by priests, and not by translation, but direct revelation.  No peep stone, certainly no Umim and Thummin, and certainly no gold plates.

So, not that it matters to people who don't care what the Bible teaches...

But a "prophet" using the Urim and Thummin for "translation"  of "gold plates" to obtain the word of God is totally unscriptural.

You posted the truth... You met lies with truth. You met antagonism with truth. There is not much more you can do. Absolutely not much more you can do...

Let-go and let-God, bro.

Use the *ignore* feature... They will arock you just like they arocked Dogface...

Someone tried to contact his employer? That's what "arocked" means.


He brought the boot on himself. He was insulting people (not their theology/religion, though he did that too) directly left and right and at the same time reporting other people in the thread to try to get them banned.

Lots of attacking of theology / religious leaders went from both sides. No bans from that. Maybe the religion fights had nothing to do with his banning and it was the cursing out and insulting of other posters directly.


One side says "joseph smith was a %^!@$%$" the other side says "your are a !%$%#!@$#". See the difference?

I dunno.   But hopefully for their sake, they figured it out before their time was up.

This was my context (used originally against Dogface) for me using the term "arocked"...



This was the other part of the "context:"











I am not going to argue that... He stopped making sense, and started making *me* nervous with posting about the early massacres of Mormons... Any more of that, and I would have at least I/M'd him to knock it off. Honestly. If you look back, you will see me reminding him that we need to look in our own house on some things, some times...

But in the context of the thread, and the free-for-all after there was *obviously* (see above) no COC applied to the antagonists... He should have a warning, or time-out, and not a perma... Honestly.

I don't want to see *anyone* banned. Not criley. Not M-1975. No one... Honestly.

But to look at the *repeated* use of the term "cult" directed at the LDS Church, (which I frankly don't care about... Its a back-handed compliment that hearkens back to the pre-creed, pre-Constantine Church).

And see that even O_P says it will lead to a COC violation... Which I *honestly* do not care about... Lets discuss stuff. Everyone knows I like discussing stuff. Who cares about the COC, just keep your hits above-the-belt, folks.

So you see O_P says in plain-English that its a COC violation. You see that Dogface claims he reported M-1975 for it... You see O_P say, (essentially) "I will only do anything about it when its reported." Dogface wrote that *he* reported it... And then see... That the only person effected by the COC was Dogface... Come on, bro. You got to see they utter hypocrisy... Yes?

Come on, man... People are going to argue. Dogface crossed the line. But so did *everyone* above, per O_P...

So... Yeah... I think this thread is a fair warning that the COC can be suspended for those who want to get their shots-in at the LDS Church... Honestly. Seriously.

Shane's post was accurate and truthful...

Quoted:

A sad reminder why such discussions have to be handled carefully.  Those who call the LDS Church a "cult" and other such terms in a derogatory manner will probably get away with it.  Respond in a similar manner and we stand to lose.  Be careful to avoid getting trolled.

It is very-clear in this thread that even those antagonists who used the term "cult" against LDS arfcommers and who were reported (Dogface wrote in this thread that he reported M-1975) were ignored, and got away with it.

Look... I do not want *anyone* "banned." Not criley. Not M-1975. No one.

But to say or imply that it is a two-way street, looking at the facts... To say or imply that it is a two-way street is utterly ridiculous. Absolutely contemptuous to say or imply that it was a two-way street...

The COC came-down on Dogface, and multiple other posters were ignored for it. Even ones who Dogface claimed he reported. And Dogface got the hammer.

Yes... This thread serves as a fair-warning to LDS folks, as Shane identified, and as non-Mormon Fatalerror has identified earlier, that it is *absolutely* not a level playing field...

For the record, I like you dogmeat. I also like O_P.

But I stand by what I have said about the goalposts getting moved, and there not being a level-field in threads like this...

I haven't violated COC.

Haven't made any personal insults at all.

That wasn't me that said that; it was a quote from a man who asked the LDS church to cease and desist using his father's name to lend credibility to the BoM.
 


ETA:




"I have more to boast of than any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet... When they can get rid of me, the devil will also go."
- Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol.6, pp. 408-09.

YAP YAP YAP.


Do you even know the context in which that was spoken.  Have you ever even read 2 Cor. 11, when Paul was boasting?   I guess that makes Paul just like Joseph Smith.


In the original context, Joseph was facing intense persecution by many people, including some he had previously considered to be his friends. The statement about "boasting" was made about a month before he was killed. He made it after reading 2 Corinthians 11: to the congregation. Note the following statement by Paul, in this scripture:
Paul: "let no one think me foolish; but if you do, receive me even as foolish, that I also may boast a little"
Again I say, let no one think me foolish; but if you do, receive me even as foolish, that I also may boast a little. That which I am speaking, I am not speaking it as the Lord would, but as in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting. Since many boast according to the flesh, I will boast also. For you, being so wise, bear the foolish gladly. (2 Corinthians 11:16-19)

Paul then launches into a literary tirade where he claims many things to make himself look the fool, to contrast himself with those who the Corinthians were listening to for their words of salvation, instead of to him. His words were meant to compare and contrast what the Saints at Corinth were doing against what he was offering.

Nice to see you leave out the other part of Joseph's statement right after reading this chapter of Paul's to the congregation:

   "My object is to let you know that I am right here on the spot where I intend to stay. I, like Paul, have been in perils, and oftener than anyone in this generation. As Paul boasted, I have suffered more than Paul did, I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my brethren think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has constituted me curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted. If oppression will make a wise man mad, much more a fool. If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster: I shall always beat them. When facts are proved, truth and innocence will prevail at last. My enemies are no philosophers: they think that when they have my spoke under, they will keep me down; but for the fools, I will hold on and fly over them."




Perhaps M-1975 is unaware of Paul's advice? Or perhaps he  applies a double standard where Paul is allowed such literary and rhetorical license, but Joseph is not?

Such double standards are, sadly, the stock-in-trade of critics like him.

In short, Joseph is using the scripture in Paul as a counter-argument (or a rhetorical device)--he is responding to his critics, and demonstrating that (as with Paul) true messengers from God are often persecuted by those who should listen, while the false and apostate are praised.





Just another sidenote about the source they are using.  The history of the church is not a primary source.  It is complied from accounts of people that were there, but is not 100% accurate.

It worth saying that in the general reliability of the History of the Church, in view of the way it was put together, it is not the overall thrust or narrative that is likely to be inaccurate, but the nuances, the tone, the details. This is precisely the opposite problem from that which anti-Mormon critics would have us see in it: they think the overall story of the History incorrect (e.g. divine intervention, revelation, Joseph Smith's prophetic calling, etc.), but they want us to accept the details of tone and mood that it furnishes—or at least they do when those details seem to put the Prophet in a bad light.

It's amusing that the very same people who vehemently reject the History of the Church as an unreliable source when it seems to support the LDS position clutch it to their bosoms as an unparalleled historical treasure when they think they can use it as a weapon against the alleged errors of Mormonism.


Just more hypocrisy and deception from LDS critics.

Liar.

It was right-there in your post. You wrote it. How can you *possibly* claim to have ethics, integrity, or credibility? Honest question...?-?-? You get caught in this kind of a lie all the time.

It wasn't in a link. Even though that would technically violate the COC, also.

It wasn't someone else who posted it, claiming you wrote it.

It was right there in your post. Right there in your post.

You might have been quoting someone else in your post. But you wrote it... That is pretty weak, even from what we have come to expect from you,  "Hey I was just quoting someone else who said it." It was right there in your post. You wrote it. No one had a gun to your head when you wrote it. And you got away with it...

And it is a blatant, obvious, easy-to-see and absurdly transparent example that the COC is suspended for those who antagonize the LDS Church...

"Hey, I was just quoting someone else who said the LDS Church was a cult..." Good grief. You wrote that the LDS Church was cult in other posts, you wrote in your own post, and quoted someone else who agreed with you that the LDS Church was a cult...

It is simply an example of your lack of honesty and integrity... Your lack of ability to follow the COC... And your full-knowledge that you can violate it as an LDS-hater, and get away with it...




This is one of your posts...



This is one of your posts...



Right there in your posts. You knew full-well when you wrote it that if any LDS arfcommer swung back, you would slap the *report* button on them. Your violations would be ignored, and the LDS folks would get the hammer. It isn't a level playing field, and the goalposts were moved for *you.*

How many times have you quoted the "cult" comment? Are you violating the COC?

there is no double standard of rules. It's pretty obvious that dogface wasn't banned for ridiculing theology but rather cursing at and attacking other members.

Yes it was.

Are you trying to defend your credibility? Laughable. You wrote and put it in your post, and *any* effort to hide behind, "I was just writing in my post what someone else said" Is pure, unadulterated, BS. Absolutely BS.

You wrote it.

You put it in your post.

And it matched what you had written in at least one other post...



You knew that the COC didn't apply to you when you wrote it, and it is a transparent and easy-to-see example of the COC getting put-on-hold for those who antagonize the LDS Church and LDS arfcommers.



It was found in *your* post, and no one had a gun to your head when *you* wrote it.

I don't know why you are trying to play the weasel-out game. You have something many other arfcommers don't have... You have full-knowledge that the COC does not apply to you.

So why the weasel?



Here is the full-quote... Antagonists insist on cutting-out the reference to Corinthians and Paul...

President Joseph Smith read the 11th Chap. 2 Corinthians. My object is to let you know that I am right here on the spot where I intend to stay. I, like Paul, have been in perils, and oftener than anyone in this generation. As Paul boasted, I have suffered more than Paul did. I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my brethren think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has constituted me so curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted. If oppression will make a wise man mad, much more a fool. If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster; I shall always beat them. When facts are proved, truth and innocence will prevail at last. My enemies are no philosophers: they think that when they have my spoke under, they will keep me down—but for the fools, I will hold on and fly over them.

The reference to Corinthians and Smith referencing Paul's "boasting" gives context and scriptural-foundation to his statements...





He was murdered soon after the statement was made. It is clear in the statement that Smith is not quoting himself... "President Joseph Smith then read..." That would give even the most novice of academians a clue that Smith himself did not write it.

He did not write it. It was based on a synopsis by Thomas Bullock. Right there in Volume Six of the HOTC: "The following synopsis was reported by Mr. Thos. Bullock."

Joseph Smith was long-dead when the synopsis by Thomas Bullock was put into the HOTC... Smith was not there to supervise the entry for accuracy.

You are attempting to say, "Smith absolutely said XYZ." When the reality is that Smith was dead (for years) before the Sixth volume of the HOTC was published...

Again... You find yourself on the opposite side of truth and accuracy...

"By 27 June 1844, the date of Joseph Smith's death, the manuscript of the history [of the Church] had been completed only to 5 August 1838 and published [in the Times and Seasons] to December 1831" -Link

The truth...

Smith may have said something similar. He may have even said something close. But he was not alive when the statement was printed and published, he most-certainly did not have the chance to check it for accuracy... Certainly not an academically-accepted *primary* source.

It was something *attributed* to Smith from a secondary-source...

And even if he did say something similar... With Smith using Paul as a basis, and compared to scripture... There is context to what Smith may have said...

It wasn't just me who identified the double-standard and hypocrisy. Shane saw it too...

Me, saying... *see* M-1975 ridiculed and attacked other arfcommers by claiming they were in a cult...





I think the *context* is pretty-clear... M-1975 is claiming LDS arfcommers are in a cult, where I am simply using the term to show how M-1975 used it to (per O_P) violate the COC. You are *purposefully* trying to be obtuse, and appear dense in order to feign that this is a two-way street, when it is obviously not.... You: "Yes, M-1975 clearly violated the COC, and said that LDS arfcommers are in a cult, but then Juni quoted M-1975, so essentially, they both used the term 'cult.'" Good grief.

Yes... The COC getting put-on-hold for those who ridicule and attack LDS arfcommers is pretty transparent...

Shane identified it.

Non-LDS Fatalerror identified it.

And, frakly, even O_P admits the goalpost move...



It is not *me* who created the irony here.

Frankly, I did not care... But when O_P freely-admits and identifies that what was going-on was most-certainly a double-standard... Yeah... I don't care... Honestly.. But...

But lets not pretend that the double-standard isn't obviously transparent here....

M-1975's post, "He was a sexual predator on par with many cult leaders." Was --per Dogface-- *reported.*

So no one can claim that it was because LDS folks refused to *report.* The (identified by O_P, not *me*) COC violation *was* reported by Dogface...

I didn't invent the COC. I frankly don't care...

But you do not have to look too hard to see a blatant and obvious double-standard here...

I would much-rather just argue the facts and merits of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I would much-rather point to the truth of the church in the first three centuries, and point-out the fallicies and corruption of Constantine, and Constantine's new religion. Honestly. Truthfully.

It is a discussion I enjoy, and a discussion that I can hold-my-own in...

But when O_P posted that referencing the religion of a fellow arfcommer as a "cult" is a COC violation, the blatant and transparent double-standard became blazingly obvious...

You cannot see it? Honestly?

I do not want *anyone* banned. Seriously. But to claim that it is a two-way street is ridiculous. Flat-out ridiculous.

To attempt to equate Joseph Smith to Paul the apostle is laughable.

Thanks for proving this statement in that post true:

"Such double standards are, sadly, the stock-in-trade of critics like him.

In short, Joseph is using the scripture in Paul as a counter-argument (or a rhetorical device)--he is responding to his critics, and demonstrating that (as with Paul) true messengers from God are often persecuted by those who should listen, while the false and apostate are praised."

There certainly is some weirdness here from antagonists... Certainly.

"It is a-ok for Paul, and the early Apostles to do it. But not for Smith or anyone else."

Why, honestly, do they think that Paul (and the early Apostles) took the time to create scripture... If for no other reason we can see why and how *they* did things...

If someone says, "Why do you do or believe X?"

And we point to it happening in the scriptures... Are not the scriptures a solid foundation? Are not the scriptures a basis?

Yes, there is a double-standard at-play, "It was a-ok for Paul to do it, but Smith doing it gets our jimmies ruffled." Double standard...

All religious discussion aside... Your gymnastics to protect M-1975 is some of the worst I have seen on arfcom...

It wasn't just Dogface who violated the COC in this thread...

The words were right-there in the post. He himself wrote them. No one had a gun to his head.

And, lets say that you can do whatever you want, and just attribute it to quoting someone else... Which is the absolutely dumbest thing, it will destroy positive discussion in arfcom, "Hey I am just quoting someone else, but you are a #$%^&!" It sets a bad, bad precedent and it will destroy effective conversation, which is what you are feigning to be interested in... You are simply taking this tack now to defend M-1975 in clear-cut COC violations.

Here is this gem, that he cannot pass onto anyone else...



Per Dogface that post *was* reported to moderators...

At what page did this thread go from a discussion to a poo flinging contest?

Txl

Your post makes your position clear. I made-clear that I meant that the COC would be suspended for those who wanted to get their shots-in on LDS arfcommers.

I wrote that this post of yours makes it crystal-clear:



Referencing this post by M-1975:



That *was* reported to moderators,

and which got *this* response:






That is the thing...

It *was* reported...

It *was* reported, and *you* accused Dogface of (your words) "Arocking someone."

So... It *was* reported, *you* accused the reporter of (your words) "Arocking someone" and now you are accusing me of mis-quoting you????-????

I posted links to your posts. It is my opinion that your, "Calling a religion a cult is a COC violation." As a *blatant* and transparent double-standard...



I felt like I accurately and honestly interpreted your defense of those who violate the COC against LDS arfcommers... I do not believe that I mis-quoted you.

When I quoted your defense of M-1975 and those who antagonize LDS arfcommers, I linked directly to your posts.

When I interpreted your posts, I did so accurately and honestly... Shane sees it the same way I do. So does Fatalerror. I am not the only one.

I've seen crap flying since page 1.

This creates a tremendous issue.

It needs to be addressed.

It creates a situation, where a defense could be, "I was simply quoting someone else." In order to make a point that would violate the COC.

That is why moving the goalposts, and the purposeful double-standard here is so dangerous...

In *this* particular case of the COC violation, you have M-1975 violating the COC here:




Dogface reports it as a COC violation. O_P comes-out swinging to defend M-1975's COC violation. Accuses Dogface of attempting of (O_Ps words) "arocking someone."

Then we find another COC violation from M-1975:



So... You can violate the COC by (M-1975) claiming Smith is a sexual predator and a cult leader.

Then you can violate the COC, and say, I was simply quoting someone else, and it is simply coincidence that it coincides with another COC violation...

Honestly...

The double-standard sets a bad precedent...

I think some of the actions on here could apply under COC #1 or #6.

1) Posting derogatory comments of a racial, religious, or sexual nature.

6) Attacking or insulting a person in an effort to elicit a negative response.



There is stuff going both ways.  The LDS critics on here make claims, like "how can someone follow a sexual deviant or a cult like that".  That would fit #6 perfectly.  They are insulting that person and their beliefs in an attempt to elicit a negative response.

I guess dogface got punished for his negative response, while the attackers and insulters continue on.

Maybe it would be easier for them to just say no religious discussion.

*If* it is true that M-1975 could take care of himself...

Then *why* this post from you back when it was reported...



Not concerned...

Just pointing-out the blatant and transparent double-standard...

I don't want anyone banned. Since the pagans referred to the *early* Church as a "cult." I consider it a compliment.

But the truth is Dogface got banned for a COC violation... When I have seen others violate it *numerous* times in this thread.

Dogface is banned, and everyone else on the other-side is posting freely because *we* choose the higher-road... And the other-side *clearly* violates the COC, but hits the "report" button when one of us crosses the line...

Yep.

And if an LDS arfcommer decides to actually do something about it... They get accused of trying to arock someone...



Double standard.

Blatant double-standard.

Right around page 1 is where it all went south.

Oh my good golly gracious, you called Christians pagans!  COC!  Double standards!  Loud noises!

Nope.

My facts are in order...



If there was any question... I posted *directly* to your post where you defended M-1975's COC violation...

"You guy's attempt to get someone locked because they disagree with you is as disgusting as Arocking someone.

You ought to be ashamed."





And I have shown you where it has done absolutely no good for LDS arfcommers...



I don't want to "report" anyone, and I definitely don't want *anyone* "locked."




There is a clear-cut double-standard, and your own posts reveal it...

Extractr identified it.

Shane identified it.

I identified it.

Fatalerror identified it.

I am not in the wrong for pointing it out...

Why would I want to hit the report button, and be told that I should be ashamed, and told that I was trying to arock someone? Why would an LDS arfcommer be that stupid? Hitting the report button only got Dogface perma-banned...

If there are any arfcommers around from the first three centuries... We should all buy them a permanent membership...

If that is really true, there is something terribly wrong with your God or terribly wrong with your beliefs.

What's next? No drawings of Mohammed allowed?

No one was banned for ridiculing and insulting religion ... It came from both sides.

Someone was banned for directly cursing out other members.

There was no double standard.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

If what's written in the Bible is true, God is a sadistic, baby killing, torturer and mass murderer, who foments wars between various groups of humans.

And Jesus was so petty and vindictive as to destroy a fig tree because it didn't have any fruit on its branches at a time when he was hungry.

Why would anyone wish to "follow" such a diety?

If calling a guy long dead and never a member here a ped and member of a cult is a coc violation then I need to review the new coc or just never give my opinion.

You obviously have a high opinion of humans.  So much that you think we are owed things by our creator? All that God does is for His Glory and purpose.  It is not up to us to Judge Him.
Romans 9 v21-23
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction; and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had before prepared for glory.

Is a Governor a murderer because he allows the execution of a felon? How about instead we have a God so loving that He said KD5TXX is deserving of Hell, he sins against me everyday.  I have given him millions of chances and he is not worthy of even hearing My name. Yet I in my mercy and love will send my son to pay his debt so that he may have his sentence wiped away and be able to be with Me forever.

I'll proudly worship Him forever.

there is no double standard.

theology criticism and bashing of religious leaders was going on from both sides and got no one locked.

his meltdown of direct insults to other members is what got him in trouble.

I will agree that he was going postal, cussing out other members, saying he would like to hold their heads underwater etc. he never said anything towards me, I got no beef with him.  But like I said before.  90% of the people in this thread and 99% of the time we have two religious groups discussing issues.  There are others reading.  Why would either group resort to using profanity and acting childish knowing that others will judge your group by your actions? It looks bad on us all.

To be fair the "double standard" that I see is people being so opposed to other people's faith, yet can't even conceive of someone being reasonably opposed to theirs.
It is their thinking that their faith is above an beyond the problem of charismatic leaders convincing people fantastic, unsubstantiated, mystical claims.
I did not mean to imply there was some conspiracy on the site to ban LDS members.
I suspect that the reason many people who attack christianity are banned/warned is that there is a certain portion of that religious population on this site who reports things at the drop of a had.
Mods aren't coming by reporting things for you...if you think Christians are attacking Mormonism too much, pull a card from their playbook and report them. FSM knows they've done it to me in the past.



Me personally? I've only reported 1, maybe 2 people for personal attacks in the past. Never reported anyone for attacking someone else's opinion (and religion is nothing more than an opinion).  You can be that guy if you want, call the "special protected opinion that you can't make fun of" police.  Have at it, its not my bag.
If you don't, realize nothing will likely happen. No warnings. No locks. Nothing.
 

Paul lost his life for preaching repentance toward God and faith toward out Lord Jesus Christ.  HE was a true messenger of God.

Smith was an adulterer and polygamist.  People aren't "persecuted" for those things.

Back to questions....does the LD s church consider drinking a sin? I know you refrain.  If it is a sin, what is the reason LDS members can sponsor an open bar at my company meetings? They do not drink, but pay for everyone else to.  And the Mariott I ate at tonight had a bar.  Now some Baptist consider drinking a sin, and I'd ask them the same if they bought everyone a round. So no picking here.  I do not consider drinking a sin in moderation. But have no problem if people chose not to drink.

Of course it's ok for the apostles, they walked and talked with Jesus. Smith married little girls and made up a story. A bit of a difference I would say. You can't compare the two. Not even in the same Galaxy.

Can I interest you in some ocean front property in South Dakota? If you buy the smith story, surely you would buy my ocean front property in South Dakota.

Supposedly.



 

Because a deity who becomes a man in order to reconcile the wrongs with their own life is a deity that is contrary to what you try to portray Him as.