Why so many LDS threads?

Link for DU's post noted above.

well, if this were a different date the following news would be bouying DU's sagging spirit perhaps; click on the image of Shawn in a suit and tie at the end of the linked video to hear the message 'Shawn is going to be rebaptised to the LDS': http://video.aol.com/video-detail/hotm-lds-church-in-a-nutshell-christians-vs-mormons/762866511?icid=acvsv4

That was excellent.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/hotm-lds-church-in-a-nutshell-christians-vs-mormons/762866511?icid=acvsv4

Thank you.

Incidentally, there is only ONE Melchizadek Priest now, Christ The Lord. The ‘melchizadek priesthood’ in mormonism is a farcical sham invented by the same conman who tried making a living as a peepstone divination for buried treasure scam artist but found pretending at prophet was a better scam ... and the scam continues.

Amen, and amen.

Moreover, the LDS should remember that a Holy God, the God of the Bible, does not take a kind view of those who steal Authority that has not been granted to them - by Him.

This is serious business. LDS "priests" are in for one helluva (pun intended) wake up call.

It's not hatred, but if you've been to the rodeo and been bucked-off, the lesson is learned....

The organization is not to be trusted...period

Is THIS the video you mean, MHG?

Link

Yes ... interesting don’t you think?

An interesting, some what convoluted and flawed interpretation, but I understand why it works for you guys.

Sadly it is not what God meant.

I do worship him, he is my God. for he is a member of the Godhead which I worship as the one God, of Abraham, and of Issac, and of Jacob

Sorry again DU - you are trying to misdirect and confuse the general public here with that definition - remember mormonism is a polytheistic practice -three separate (ontologically) gods do not equal a one God as you claim.

Furthermore this is incorrect according to mormon teachings:

“We Worship the Father... In an official interpretation of Moses 1:6, the First Presidency (Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, And Charles W. Penrose) said: ‘But the sole object of worship, God the eternal Father, stands supreme and alone...’ Who is the sole object of worship?... President George Q. Cannon taught: ‘...We know also that our Father in Heaven should be the object of our worship... He will not have any divided worship. We are commanded to worship Him, and Him only.’ (Gospel Truth, 1:135)” —Come Unto Christ —Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, 1986, p. 46-47

you want to talk about The God of the old testament, lets start at the beginning, in Genesis 1:26, god is talking, who to? Why not God thought? in Verse 26, God says, Let us make man in Our Image, after Our likeness...

Wow and joey developed eternal progression. What is wrong here, eternal progression had been going on even before Gen 1:26 as the 'gods' mormonism is interpreting here had once been men as the gods before them - ad infinitum. What is the image of God - John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. Mormon apolgetics here is laughable, since Jesus at this time is defined as a 'god', but did not pass through mortality and get a body - something the Father NEVER accomplished.

God talking to himself, us, our? Why say this if God is one substance.

The Persons of the Trinity can do this - grossly misrepresenting the doctrine of the Trinity - that is akin to lying DU, and you said you don't do that. No, the polytheistic interpretation of Gen 1:26 is not based upon the Bible - but from the book of abraham, a fraudulently translated egyptian pagan prayer scroll commonly known as a 'book of breathing'.

From the very beginning of the Bible, the Trinity misleads people down the path of not understanding god's glorious plan of Salvation. God is at the same time each of the members of the Godhead, and all of them.

Once again, in-spite of numerous corrections to DU's apparently purposeful misstatement of the Trinity, he does it again here. The Trinity is that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three Persons who share the same, common Divine nature, thus One God. So it is no problem for the different members of the Trinity to speak to each other - as in John 17.

U Said: So, according to DU's statement of faith, this same Jehovah/Jesus begat himself as Jesus and that they worship Jesus (see the context of Gen 17:1 where Jehovah and 'el Shadday are names for the same singular God).
Specifically, this is a twisting of my words trying to make them fit your perspective, you are wrong. This is the problem of letting anyone interpret the scriptures for you, you only get part of what they say, instead, everyone should pray and look for inspiration from God, and what God tells you to do, ......

Actually, didn't twist your words at all DU, or I'm sure you would have repeated them here. What I am showing here it the logical conclusion to the twisted logic of mormonism's twisted polytheistic teachings. By acknowledging that the LORD (Gen 17)(Jehovah) is the preincarnate Jesus (minus a body BTW ) as the God of Abraham, the rest of DU's ramble -

The almighty God of Israel, whose only begotten son suffered, and died atoning for my sins, was buried and arose on the third day, this my Savior, my Lord, my God

Becomes one and the same God of Israel. DU will try to equivocate on this point by trying to say this it the God Eloheim (the Father), yet the scripture make these two terms one in the same -

There are 500+ occurances in the KJV OT where the term LORD God (Jehovah Eloheim) is present, in each case it is a singular God, not two different gods. In hundreds of other verses, the two are related to each other and were interchangable :

Gen 27: 20 And Isaac said unto his son, How is it that thou hast found it so quickly, my son? And he said, Because the LORD (Jehovah) thy God (Eloheim) brought it to me.

So when Jehovah Eloheim sent His Son to suffer and die, it was in framework of the Trinity. But according to DU's testimony above Jehovah begat himself. Pretty twisted mormon theology.

This is the problem of letting anyone interpret the scriptures for you, you only get part of what they say, instead, everyone should pray and look for inspiration from God, and what God tells you to do, do, when God tells you something is true, believe it, when God tells you not to believe something, believe it not.

For all to notice here, once again DU is attempting to get you NOT to focus on what the Bible actually says in context with the Holy Spirit's guidance. But he wants you to ignore that and seek a subjective feeling from the gods of mormonism. While prayer is a component of our study, we look to the scripture - seeking the whole council like the Bereans did (and were approved of for their study). See, DU doesn't want you to read the bible and use the numerous tools available to enhance our understanding today, but to check our reasoning at the door. This is why mormonism still retains the totally discredited book of abraham in its canon - simply because joseph smith could make no mistakes as the prophet.

Mormonism is not polytheistic, polytheism, specifically is more than just the belief that more than one God exists, but the worship of more than one God.

I just love it when DU references other websites as he did with the link to polytheism which when follows yields the following definition-

–noun
the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods.

Absolutely nothing here about the requirement to worship more than one god. However, even within DU's flawed definition mormonism is still polytheistic since they claim to worship the father, son and holy spirit - all three separate and totally individual gods.

Saying that the belief in a God who is "one" in the way one is used throughout the Bible, a oneness of heart might mind and strength, is polytheism is just plain misrepresenting our beliefs, and I know you "know better" because I have explained this to you before, truly, there are none so blind as those who will not see. Ye are blind guides when it comes to teaching people about our religion.

Cutting out the linked references - as presented to DU many times before, oneness of purpose expressed in those passages (Gen 2 and John 17) in no way serve to define the ontological oneness of the Trinity. Nor have I ever used those passages to argue for polytheism - your own scriptures (boa and D&C) combined with the historic teachings of your prophets and church make it amply clear that mormonism is polytheistic. The truly blind are those who ignore the very words of smith who makes it very clear (once again)

Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, stated, "I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods" (History of the Church 6:474).

I have never been "wrapped around the axle" on that, we worship both, as one God (we even worship the Holy spirit as part of that "one".

See joey's statement to the contrary above again.

Joseph smith was right about God, you are wrong about "uncountable God's" there is only one. your insistence that there are uncountable Gods only shows that you do not understand what you attempt to teach, thanks coach...

Readers will please note - now that the genie is out of the bottle. DU must be ignorant of the historic teaching of mormonism -

“If we should take a million of worlds like this and number their particles, we should find that there are more Gods than there are particles of matter in those worlds.”
- Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, v. 2, p. 345, February 18, 1855

I don't know where you got the Idea that we believe that God sins, we don't believe that (now the "Coach" is having trouble with algebra)

That is from another thread.

God being eternal, Joseph smith understood more about temporal mechanics than you do (which is not a complement)

From an illiterate farm boy huh. Unfortunately, joey must have listened to the coach when he said:

"We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I (Joseph Smith) will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see" (Teachings, pg. 345).

Unfortunately, the rest of DU's comments (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2013341/posts?page=2624#2624) enter into the twilight zone and are unsupportable from mormon doctrine. Mormon doctrine of eternal progression states that all had a beginning and joey ripped the veil off. In order for the deception to continue, DU must deny the prophet smith and the historic teaching of mormonism.

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

DU now tries to bolster an already weak argument by citing scripture. In arguing for his temporal mechanic, he shoots his foot by saying in the fullness of time. Next he will condemn mormonism

Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

Paul didn't teach polytheism - Paul taught monotheistic trinitarism. All the key doctrines of Christianity are rooted in the teachings of Christ and documented in the NT. Joseph Smith and his visions of angels and other beings preach the other gospel preached by Paul and the apostles.

Paul said anyone who changed the Gospel of an eternal inheritance with Christ as the reward for faithfulness, they would be accursed, Paul said that anyone who denied that Christ was an heir of God would be accursed. The Trinity denies these things. The Trinity denies that Jesus is the son by making him God. The Trinity denies that we can be Jiont-Heirs with Jesus Christ, which is at the very heart of the Gospel.

Once again, DU displays a gross inadequacy in describing even the basics of the doctrine of the Trinity. First he displays ignorance of what the term gospel comes from the greek - euaggelion - the glad tidings of the kingdom of God soon to be set up, and subsequently also of Jesus the Messiah, the founder of this kingdom. After the death of Christ, the term comprises also the preaching of (concerning) Jesus Christ as having suffered death on the cross to procure eternal salvation for the men in the kingdom of God, but as restored to life and exalted to the right hand of God in heaven, thence to return in majesty to consummate the kingdom of God (Thayer).

But what is more showing is DU's statement - The Trinity denies that Jesus is the son by making him God - Uh, Jesus is God, by definition God the Son, Second Person of the Trinity.

AFA denying the believing in the Trinity denies that we become joint heirs with Christ is sadly laughable. Beside residing in an incorrect understanding of the definition of the gospel, DU cannot avoid linking the unlinkable that being a joint heir with Christ equates to godhood.

I submit that while yo may know the definition of the word you have no concept of "Eternity", or of the nature of God. (and yes, I am talking about the nature of God in the Bible)

Oh quite the opposite - as any objective reader will see. Your temporal mechanics cannot be substantiated scripturally (perhaps one can only pray - right), but is out right rejected by the very words of Joseph Smith. AFA the biblical nature of God, clearly the bible teaches that God is a Trinity. For those interested (yes and even you DU) a very detailed study of the Trinity can be found here:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin01.html

U Said: Mormonism teaches that God is not Spirit (John 4:24)
"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body." -- C.S. Lewis So do you have a spirit? (I hope the answer is yes) are you just a spirit? (Again, I hope the answer is no). God has a Body, he is also a spirit, spirit and Body inseparably connected is whatdefines a resurrected being.

Lets review the teaching - "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's" (D&C 130:22). The Bible clearly teaches that God is Spirit. For mormonism to put God into a body as tangible as man's out of the box restricts that god. Mormons should look to one of their (more recent) definitions of the Holy Spirit to understand the difference.

Tell me, if being only a spirit is so great, why is resurrection so important? Why curse us spirits with an eternal ball and chain of a Body? This belief that God is "spirit only" is pure Greek mysticism and is a corruption of biblical teaching.

Jesus' resurrection is important as Paul stated - 1 Cor 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

AFA greek mysticism and corruption of bible teaching - you've proved neither. Jesus Himself said that God is spirit - or are you making Jesus out to be a liar? His teaching IS part of the bible.

I Said: ANYONE WHO DENIES MY WITNESS DOES SO AT HIS OR HER ETERNAL PERIL. followed by this comment by DU
I did not damn anyone to hell, specifically, I did not list any one person. I did not say they would go to hell, for I am not their judge, that's Jesus' job and I for one am grateful for that. I did not use the word hell for a reason (the judgment aspect is only one reason), another reason is, people here (hopefully) are still alive, they have not been judged yet,they can still repent so it's peril, not final. Denying a testimony of Jesus is not trivial thing. Denying a testimony of the Book of Mormon is not nearly as bad, but still not a good thing. Argue all you want, I have never dammed anyone here to hell which was the charge.

This has been addressed in other posts, but for the first time reader I'll recap. ETERNAL PERIL within common usage (and totally absent any definition by DU) is a reference to hell. What triggers this- a rejection or denial of DU's TESTIMONY. DU assumes his subjective testimony to be true - although it is impossible to verify it. Since it is on DU's word alone, DU damn's those who will not accept this amorphous testimony as truth superior to anything else. DU even accepts the judgement aspect, typical semantics.

The facts of the matter however are that Mormons are not polytheistic, and we don't typically go around "Damning people to hell".

For all, the preceding paragraphs show otherwise.

I have defined what I meant, you just can't hear me because you think you know what I am going to say before I say it, hence your constant reference to "burners" when I have never said my witness was from a burning in my bosom, specificallyI have said it was not.

It is apparent you have not defined anything of matter in your ETERNAL PERIL post. Perhaps you have in a later post I haven't gotten to yet - we'll see then. And as far as your witness - that has never been defined with any objective measure either

Let's try for a little honesty here, Bruce R. McConkie wrote Mormon Doctrine fifteen(15) years, I believe before he was appointed an apostle, so attributing the words to him as an apostle is a bit disingenuous...

Yes DU, lets try for some honesty. McConkie wrote MD while being a member of the 70. Being honest it was later edited, proof read and approved by the GA in at least two follow on editions that I am aware of. The fact that those later editions were while he was an APOSTLE further gives credibility to his teachings. The FACT that he did eventually become an Apostle indicates that his doctrine was in line with the teachings of mormonism. So lets be honest shall we DU.

Bruce R. Mcconkie wanted the work "canonized", it was not in part because of it's incendiary tone towards non members, and Catholics in specific, Later when he had mellowed a bit he was called as an apostle. So it's not authoritative for the Church, it is however a Good read, and a good source for most things.

Yet to see documentation on the canonization issue. If a man as high up in mormonism as Bruce McConkie or indeed joseph smith (which you will address below) doesn't know the truth, what hope do you or any other mormon really have? Not a snowball's

U Said: "...all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels." - Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. , The Elders Journal, v. 1, no. 4, p. 60
I could quote you some things that Martin Luther said about the Pope and Catholics...
Except I'm not here to bash them, you are here to bash us, and unfortunately for you, I'm not here to bash, but to teach and testify...

Two standard tactics employed rather than address the specific comment in the context of the discussion- start a Luther/Catholic argument and #2 deny, deny, deny. Of course he does this further through editing my response to separate McConkie's comment away from joseph smith's. But the two are linked together - showing that from the beginning, mormonism has condemned non-mormons to hell. Now if DU does not like guilt by association, there are groups that can help him depart from mormonism. Regarding DU not being here to bash - what would one call the blatant misrepresentation of the doctrine of the Trinity. But then you don't do that.

My Testimony

Lurkers are knowledgeable enough to go to the previous post if they want to take the time to read it. So I will address a couple of points.

I have put the Promises contained in the Book of Mormon at Moroni 10:4, ..... and was told that it was true

Ever hear of a circular argument - the item in question says it is true on what basis? Does praying about the book remove all the evidence which clearly shows this book is not from God? It makes sense that if Satan wants people to believe the Book of Mormon is sacred scripture, he would incorporate an unbiblical method in order to come to such a conclusion? The Bible never says to pray about the matter. Instead, I John 4:1 reads, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world."

While it is true that 1 John 4:2-3 and 2 John 7, describe a specific heresy that false spirits would espouse, these verses are not intended to be an all-encompassing test for the truthfulness of angelic beings. However, in understanding the historical background surrounding John's warnings, the principles held in these passages can be applied to Mormonism. It is important to recognize that 1 John was written to counter some of the religious ideas of a sect known as Gnosticism. The Gnostics pre-dated Christianity. Named after the Greek word “gnosis” for “knowledge,” Gnosticism combined Jewish and Christian elements of faith with eastern mythology and Greek philosophy to produce an ideology possessing a kind of secret knowledge of Christ. The primary difference between the Christian view of God and the Gnostic belief centered on its concept that God, who was purely good, could not have created the physical world because it contained evil. Thus, Gnosticism held that various other forces, known as the children of God, created the physical world and that Christ was merely one of these children who descended to earth to share this “secret knowledge” that only the Gnostics claimed to posses. Adhering to a dualistic concept in which spirit is viewed as good and flesh evil, Gnosticism held that Christ’ divine spirit descended into the man Jesus at his baptism and left him before the cross, leaving the man Jesus devoid of His Divine “Christ” spirit at his birth and at his death. The danger of Gnosticism is evident as it denies the incarnation of God as the Son, and in so doing, denies the true effectiveness of the atonement since, if Jesus is not God, He could not atone for all of mankind’s sins, leaving us without a Savior. When we take into consideration the reasons why John warned against the “antichrist” spirits of Gnosticism which denied that Christ had come in the flesh and, in so doing, distorted the true nature of Jesus and His atonement, it is evident that Mormonism also falls under condemnation, for it distorts the nature of Christ in reference to His Deity.

By claiming that Jesus had to "earn" his Godhood (see Mormon Doctrine, p. 129) and that He is the spirit-brother of Lucifer and all mankind (see Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 4, 1992, p. 1670), Mormonism relegates Christ to a mere creature--far from the Eternal God who never had a "beginning of days" (see Hebrews 7:3) and who never had to "earn" his Godhood because He has always been and will continue to be “God” from eternity past to eternity future (see Isaiah 9:6). Hence, while Mormonism is the opposite of Gnosticism in reference to its view of Christ’s human nature, it is similar to Gnostics heresy in that it distorts a key aspect of Christ’s person – i.e., His Deity.

Thus, we see Satan’s tactics do not change but are merely repackaged, applying truth mixed with error to deceive people. Just as the Bible warns, Satan goes about disguising himself as an "angel of light" (2 Cor 11:14) and can be identified by his distortion of the truth concerning Christ’s nature. Whether the distortion is focused on Jesus' humanity or His Divinity, it is still deception.
(http://www.4witness.org/ldsscripture/lds_1john4_2.php)

and Prayed to God about the Book of Mormon and was told that it was true and that Jesus was my savior and walked in the flesh on the earth.

The Berean didn't do it this way. Who/what told you it was true? A vision, a voice or indigestion? No, the Bereans investigated the claims of the newcomer (Christianity) against the scriptures. The bom is a 19th century work of fiction and no amount of prayer will suddenly reveal the evidence of millions upon millions of jews here in the Americas from sea to sea. Not one mormon era 'coin' has ever been found, not one sword, not one breastplate, not one sword, not one building foundation, not one chariot and at the site of the final slaughter of the Nephite peoples at Hill Cumorah - not a single item of evidence of the massive battle that killed hundreds of thousands upon that small plot of land has EVER been found. As one who has read the bom and prayed about it a long time ago, God show to me that it is a work of fiction and that joseph smith is a false prophet - along with all of those who have taken up the mantle over the years.

That is your perspective, I dare you to state that your perception of reality is reality and not your perception.

Your reality is subjective - so you have told me. My reality incorporates the objective.

U Said: the words are compared to the standard of the Bible - just like the Bereans.
There was no "Standard Bible" when Paul was teaching the Breans...

Cute, in using the term bible, I meant the existing canon of Jewish Scripture we have as the OT. Nice opportunity for me to clarify.

you mean the Torah?

The term in Acts is graphe which generically refers to all the collection of the Jewish canon - essentially the 39 books of the OT (under current structure - the Jews combined some books together, providing a lower count).

I have encouraged all to read the Bible and the Book of Mormon. I encourage everyone to pray about Both.

Then you need to go back and revise your canned testimony from earlier, since you consistently say to only pray and read the bom. The bible is consistently an afterthought, and I don't ever recall you encouraging any one to pray to see if the bible was true in the same manner you challenge the bom.

When have I ever talked about looking for a "burner" as you derisively call them? I don't because that is not how My witness came.

Again, tell the boys on bikes that they are misleading the potential converts, they need to tell them that they'll receive a non-descript, subjective answer that they'll some how try to twist into a testimony. And you've never bother to tell us how your witness came - other than it is subjective.

Eternal PERIL means you are in danger, but it's not over, there is still time to pull it out, Repent MAN!

Well, lets look at the structure again....

ANYONE WHO DENIES MY WITNESS

You are the focus of this witness which you believe to be true FWIW.

DOES SO AT HIS OR HER ETERNAL PERIL

You through your witness condemns the individual to eternal peril if they don't believe you.

I had just testified of Jesus Christ. Anyone who denies a witness of Jesus Christ whether that witness is by me or you or Nana, or Whoever, just put themselves in ETERNAL PERIL. You can take that to the bank.

I am not afraid of your jesus because it false. What you can take to the bank is the Word of God on the matter over anyone's word any day.

Twisting the English language? LOL! I'm the one who keeps linking to an online dictionary, remember me?

Right, how can I forget the link to polytheism that total took your argument right out from under you.

Bravo!

I think that was very powerful, because it listed all of the requirements a person must go through to be determined a “Mormon Christian”, as opposed to clinging to the Cross.

The Grace of God has always been sufficient.

And I am thankful that He guided me to Him.

Thank you for the link, greyfoxx.

Saw that too. After I picked up my jaw off the floor and removed the lint out of my mouth I had a good laugh - he made an excellent point.

Speaking of points, a related video is right here that you might like too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_UxJzHjzSc&feature=related

Wow, what an empty list of archaeological evidence that is! Why, it might even make believers out of non-believers, if they but had a peepstone to gaze through.

Can't say you've not been warned.

Neither can you...

I Said: I stand by my statement, he doesn't know what he is talking about

I Said: I know - that is why you appear so foolish here.

Really? The man starts off his video talking about Offices in the priesthood, and he claims the priesthood is not mentioned until later.

If you tell me you were driving down the street, and decided to stop and fill your car with Gas, I'm not going to ask you "hey when did the car come into this story? You're back filling the car to make the lie of driving down the street more plausible!"

It's just a silly assertion to make.

As to appearing foolish, I'm willing to do that for the Lord, he's done so much for me...

THAT is a new low for even you.

My exact words were "Anyone who thinks that you can ordain someone to an office in the priesthood and not have or be talking about the priesthood is either mistaken or lying, I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt..."

Please explain how when faced with two alternatives, I give they guy the benefit of the doubt is a new low? I guess you must think my posts so far have been really high?

I Said :I had just testified of Jesus Christ. Anyone who denies a witness of Jesus Christ whether that witness is by me or you or Nana, or Whoever, just put themselves in ETERNAL PERIL. You can take that to the bank.

U Said: DO YOU MEAN LIKE THIS CHALLENGE OF MY TESTIMONY BY YOU, DU?(My words in red)

To: greyfoxx39; FastCoyote
You said: Response to 1193: As DU puts it so gracefully, "I am calling you out, start asking others to read and pray so they can duplicate your "Negative answer" experience or admit that you didn't have one.

Put up or shut up time.

You said: I have posted here before that after much study, prayer and fasting, I received a message from the Holy Spirit that the Book of Mormon was not a message from God, that Joseph Smith's "revelation" was not from the spirit of God, and that Christ is the Savior of mankind. That Christ is with me always, and that HE is the only way to salvation through HIS grace, not through empty works or rituals.

I could go the route of some on this forum, and tell you that your message was from the devil appearing as an angel of light, or I could tell you that Satan answered your prayers (you see, I have been told both of those things by anti's), But I do not believe nor have I ever found scriptural support for Satan answering a prayer to God, instead of God.

Instead, I am just asking how did you receive a negative answer? Much fun has been made here by anti's, FC even makes jokes about a burning in his colon, trying to tick us off or some such.

I'm asking you again, how exactly did you receive your negative message?

What exactly were you asking God in your prayer?

What exactly were your preparations for an answer from on high?

Please understand I am not trying to tear you down, but your actions are not consistent with your words here and I as an analyst must either conclude that you have left something vital out of your report, or you have falsified it in some way. I do not like to think that my Christian brethren would lie about something so important to the salvation of the soul, so I ask for more information to help me and any Lurkers to rectify the apparent contradictions of your story with your actions.

This is MY testimony to all.

I invite all Christians to praise Him here, but I don't believe it necessary to "defend" your faith against a challenge from those who are mislead. If any care to take up the challenge of reading the Book of Mormon and asking God its truth, please do so. But be aware that if you receive a message that it is NOT true, you will be told by Mormons that YOU failed in some way.

If your goal is to receive and answer, and you do not, have you not failed?

IF my Goal was to read the Bible and know that Jesus is God, and I stop reading before I finish and don't receive that knowledge, have I not failed?

If you get an answer positive, or negative, you have achieved something remarkable, and it should change your life. I wold expect (logically) that an answer from God as promised in the bible, would change that activities of any who receive it. The truths in the Bible have IMHO changed the course of history for the better. I believe those changes came because God testified of his truth to men and they acted accordingly. I also believe that God testifies of the Book of Mormon. It is that dual testimony from God that motivates me, I believe anyone who receives a testimony from God to any truth will never be the same as they were before they received that testimony.

This is why I challenged you, for if you have truly received an answer from God, you would be encouraging others to go and get that answer, and I have seen no evidence of that on this forum. your words are not consistent with your actions as I have observed human behavior to be when impacted by a revelation. So, either start acting right, or explain, or I will keep asking.

Let me make this clear, I am not trying to browbeat you, I just want to understand, and curiosity is also a powerful motivator for me.
posted on 11/28/2007 9:05:57 AM MST by ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1925641/replies?c=1204

No not like that, I challenged your anti-testimony of the Book of Mormon, not a testimony of Jesus. If I had indeed challenged your testimony of Jesus, then I would be in peril as well.

Nice try though, my logic still stands about your "testimony", and you never did answer the questions, so you should ask Nana if that makes you a liar (she says any unanswered question makes anyone a liar, LOL!)

An interesting, some what convoluted and flawed interpretation, but I understand why it works for you guys.

Sadly it is not what God meant.

I'm trying to explain something to people who don't have some basic concepts Mormons take for granted. I consider your understanding however meager a compliment for my efforts.

As for the "not what God meant" How do you know that, exactly? I believe, and the Spirit testifies to me that it is exactly what God meant (cross perspective misunderstandings excepted)

Get a load of this, first a 48 pager if copied to word, now he fulfills my prophecy be embarking on another attempt to exceed the Unabridged Oxford English dictionary for length.
Not gonna stay up tonight, can you call on all those who said my posts were to long to comment on the 48 pager and this new attempt at filibustering?