Posted on 08/30/2010 6:33:31 AM PDT by Jenny Hatch
Visalia, Calif. • A Mormon church official was shot dead between services on Sunday, and less than an hour later, the man suspected of the crime also died after a shootout with police.
Clay Sannar, 42, a lay bishop with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Visalia, southeast of Fresno, died after being shot in his office, said Visalia police chief Colleen Mestas.
Soon after the first shooting, a caller identified himself to police as the shooter. Police responded, and there was a confrontation with several shots exchanged, said Mestas.
The suspect was hit multiple times. He was taken to nearby Kaweah Delta Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead. He has not been identified yet. No officers were injured, Mestas said.
Tulare County sheriff’s deputies are taking over the investigation of the shootout involving the police officers. The sheriff’s department did not immediately return calls for comment.
Visalia police continue to investigate Sannar’s shooting, but have not identified a motive.
(Excerpt) Read more at sltrib.com ...
But remember you have to actually address the objections, not ignore them and act like they don't exist.
Seeing as I produce no spin but point out obvious, substantive and supportable fact, well your statement is irrelevant.
PD, allow me to exemplify a glaring example within this past week of what we're talking about here, dynamic-wise.
Post after post of yours, you give links to Lds sources, including Lds apologetics' sources. People -- Mormons and non-Mormons alike -- are suppose to go there and trust what is said there.
So, a fellow Mormon of yours, Reno232, who commented earlier on this thread, did exactly that on a recent Beck thread.
In this middle of this fairly nice exchange Reno was having with AMPU & Osage Orange, Reno says:
We have discussed this ad naseum before haven’t we Osage? I won’t spend the time here repeating the same argument that’s been given several times here other than to direct the lurker to: http://en.fairmormon.org/Adam-God for a brief explanation of the quote. The FACT is that this doctrine was never preached before the B.Y. quote, nor after. It never was LDS doctrine & certainly isn’t now, your & AMPU’s claim to the contrary not withstanding.
Source: 8/27 & 8/28 Glenn Beck Takes Another Bite Out of the Apple: The Meaning of Divine Destiny post #118
So, here we have a Mormon, going to one of your recommended Mormon sites, and trusting that what is said there was enough for him to conclude that Brigham Young -- after 1852 -- "never preached" the doctrine that Adam is God thereafter.
Well, if you go to that exchange source (post #200), I've given three Young quotes thereafter which shows Young continued to teach it for over 20 years!
Brigham Young, 1873: "How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me--namely that Adam is our father and God...Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companions came here. He brought one of his wives with him, and she was called Eve...Our Father is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to alll his children who have or who ever will come upon the earth (David W. Evans, The Deseret News, June 18, 1873 under headline of "Discourse")
Now which is it, PD? (& Reno?) Are statements like what Reno made due to dishonesty? (I don't know his motives, so I don't know) Did Reno simply make a bad mistake, not intending to mislead? (Again, I don't know.)
What I do know is that if you P.D. are repeatedly endorsing FAIR on thread after thread after thread -- like you've done this one -- and then if your fellow Mormons are confident to make a conclusion that is quite false...then either the poster got it badly wrong, or the source was definitively misleading.
Given that the source Reno used (FAIR) highlighted only Young's 1852 source and somehow left off the 1873 source, I would have to give Reno the benefit of the doubt and say he didn't intend to mislead. He was led astray by Mormon apologists; apologists that both you and him are all too willing to endorse.
PD, you toss out spiritual endorsements like some local political gatekeeper. Perhaps you need to take a closer look at the lemons they are producing before you keep publishing your used car referral list!
The only explanation of anything is in the context of Truth. This isn't an election, this is something that can't be decided by committee. If a tree is felled by the ax of a lumberjack the only explanation of the tree's condition is that it was chopped down by that man. Coming along and saying beavers did it is an explanation, but not the correct one no matter how much you believe it or how hard you argue for it. Indeed arguing such whilst standing right in from of the exhausted lumberjack holding the ax with his foot on the tree itself rather absurd, but I am sure there would be those who would try if it suited their cause.
Still changes nothing.
Bring on your arguments and I'll demonstrate.
Yet the bom - which smith claimed to contain the fullness of the gospel, not needing anyother book - is completely silent about chances for salvation after death. In this one area it is in agreement with the Bible which teaches there is no salvation after death. Jesus’ teaching about Lazarus and Abraham make that clear.
The LDS are not just simply another religion like the Muslims and the Buddhists. Those groups don't steal from Christianity, don't say “in Jesus name “ when they pray or claim to be a better version of Christianity.
You cannot negotiate Truth.
Conferring around a table will not magically make Nephi ruins and artifacts magically appear nor place Israelite/Hebrew DNA into the cells of native America populations.
A game of rock papaer siccsors is not going to cause Mormon Polythiesm to be true or Jesus to become the brother of Satan.
A won coin toss by a Mormon will not make Joe Smith a real prophet.
When you ask for agreement it is testament to asking me and other Christians to sit down with the man who robbed my home and negotiate what of my stolen possession he gets to keep and the ones I will get back.
It just doesn't work that way
Of course being right is a whole other ball game...
I don't necessarly agree with that context norm, I'd like then to make a parallel point. What if you had a 'bad' day norm and sinned. D&C 82:7 state -“And now, verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, will not lay any sin to your charge; go your ways and sin no more; but unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return, saith the Lord your God.”
Now you find your self with unrepentant sin norm and its several days until sunday. Earlier in ALMA 11:37, it is written that you cannot be saved in your sin - well you just sinned and ALL those past sins have been restored against you. Then you get hit by a bus - you failed to obtain forgiveness for those sins norm, you have "procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death" Alma 34. Now, since you state that this passage pertains only to those who know about the fullness of the gospel - it would be safe to assume this is inclusive of mormons - then the fate of ALMA 34:33-35 now falls on you norm. You've just died with unforgiven sin and in continually sin (since you failed to remove sin completely from your life), your doctrine states clearly that you cannot be saved or "inherit the kingdom of heaven (Alma 11:37)
So what does mormonism offer to me norm, given that it is impossible for man to live a completely sinless life.
“I love the Scriptures:”
Selectively, apparently.
Can you show me a Scripture “you love” that says you can become a god?
Good question, Godzilla.
I think we need to live in a state of humility before God, which would include having a broken heart and contrite spirit. This should mean continual repentance for sin.
God knows we are imperfect and flawed, and I believe he is merciful to those who honestly strive to overcome their sins and weaknesses.
Regards,
Normandy
Mormonism still offers me nothing on these points norm.
ALMA 5:27-31 states that one must be "blameless before God", "humble", "stripped of envy", "stripped of pride". If you are not perfect in these things norm, it states that "if ye are not ye are not prepared to meet God".
If one in in 'continual repentance for sin', it means that sin is still present in one's life. Again ALMA 11:37 states clearly that Jesus will not save you in your sin. The presence of sin requiring 'continual repentance' is addressed by Kimball in "The Miracle of Forgiveness" where he writes "There is one crucial test of repentance. This is abandonment of the sin….The saving power does not extend to him who merely wants to change his life. …Nor is repentance complete when one merely tries to abandon sin. ...Discontinuance of the sin must be permanent.... "(pp. 163-165, 176, 354-355 ). SMith also warned "Daily transgression and daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God.” —Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 148
God knows we are imperfect and flawed, and I believe he is merciful to those who honestly strive to overcome their sins and weaknesses.
Again, norm, this is what I read in your doctrine. D&C 1:31-32 states: “For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance; Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven.” What is it to repent? D&C 58:43 states: “By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them.” Already from above, that forsaking must be perminent.
Finally on this point, MORONI 10:32 state: “Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God." Grace isn't even available until you have removed all ungodliness from your life (sins, pride, envy, etc), mercy has no play.
So I still see that in mormonism
- my life must be perfectly sinless else I would not be prepared to meet God
- "continual repentance" is flawed, discontnuence of sin must be permanent and that such continual repentance is not pleasing to the lord
- the presence of any sin in my life precludes Jesus from saving me
- God will not view any unrepentant sins with any allowance
Not a whole lot there to entice one into becoming a mormon norm. Reminds me of Sisyphus, for ever rolling the boulder up the hill, only to have it go back to the bottom. Given that God doesn't grant any allowance for unrepented sin - can a mormom say that if they died this very moment they'd be in heavenly father's presence?
“Can you show me a Scripture ‘you love’ that says you can become a god?”
Joint heirs with Christ. Hooray!!
Here’s the latest from today’s Fresno Bee - 911 call - and killer used alias, etc.:
http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/08/31/2060733/visalia-cops-release-911-tape.html
“Can you show me a Scripture ‘you love’ that says you can become a god?”
“Joint heirs with Christ. Hooray!!
Sorry, your shipment of fail arrived. There is no passage that says people can become gods or ever have become gods.
(AMPU, just make sure that you leave it all to your dog in your will...that'll guarantee that FIDO becomes human after you die)
Sandy, you need to conduct a Bible study of not only the word "heir" but also "inherit" and "inheritance."
Here's three relevant verses:
7That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:7)
3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!
In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade—kept in heaven for you... (1 Peter 1:3-4)
...12giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light. 13For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. Col. 1:12-14
Now why are the apostle Paul's verses especially relevant to Mormonism's misinterpretation of what being an heir is?
Mormonism says being such an heir is reserved for married temple Mormons who work their way up the highest part of heaven.
But...
*...the apostle Paul says the works-oriented never rise up above servant status; and that being an heir is reserved for sons (Gal. 4:7).
....Mormons are trying to justify themselves by their "worthiness"; the apostle Paul says we are "made" heirs by being justified by His grace (Titus 3:7)
...Mormons say this inheritance is worked for by temple rituals & other actions; but the apostle Paul says it's God who qualifies you (Col. 1:12)
...Mormons say this inheritance is deserved (God paying up what you worked for), but the apostle Peter said this "inheritance" kept in heaven is based only upon God's "great mercy" grounded in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Pet. 1:3-4)
...Mormons claim this inheritance is a climbing operation, where they pull themselves up by their own bootstraps & reach the highest peaks of heaven. The apostle Paul instead talks about inheritance (Col. 1:12) as a rescue operation, where God had to send His Son into a dark world to pull us out (Col. 1:13-14).
Finally, let's go to the verse Sandy cited -- Romans 8:17...but let's properly back it up to Romans 8:15 as well for better context:
15For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
Mormons say EVERYBODY is God's children; the Bible says, no, only Jesus Christ is God's son -- yet God the Father has chosen to adopt many more as children. Mormons really don't know what to do with this concept of "adoption." It's completely foreign to their theology.
So being an heir is really tantamount to being an adopted child, another image the apostle Paul uses three times.
* An adopted child doesn't "work" for the highest degree of glory in his father's household. He is simply "received" into it.
* An adopted child doesn't do all of these temple rituals to qualify for heir status. No, the Father qualifies the adopted child.
* An adopted child doesn't rely upon works-worthiness to become an heir. No, he or she is completely at the "great mercy" and "grace" of his new family's father!
If Mormonism ran orphanages the way it operates religiously, all these orphans would have to jump through all kinds of hoops to get adopted...and that hoop-jumping would completely overshadow the gracious & merciful rescue operations of those who go out of their way to qualify these orphans.
First off, we really have NO idea who any of the posters are on this site, what their motivations are, or who they are in real life. That's the blessing & curse of dealing in Cyber space, it's quite anonymous, thus allowing folks to even pretend if they so wish w/o repercussions or fear of being found out.
I know for a fact that there are Democratic operatives operating as plants here. I've talked to them & they have admitted as much. We have several Freepers here that do likewise on DU & the Huffington Post. No great revelation there.
With that being said, I look at those I referred to as the Christian Jihadists, & for the better part, I see them as fanatics (please see defintion below), one trick pony's if you will. This is a conservative political website, & yet for the most part, they, for the better part, post almost exclusively on Mormon and/or Catholic bashing threads, or threads that they quickly hijack into Mormon/Catholic bashing threads (i.e. most recent Glen Beck Threads). The vast majority of their time is spent bashing, not on conservative causes for which this site has it's purpose, or at least used to. The vast majority of their time is spent on sewing seeds of discord here among conservatives, not uniting in the common theme of conservatism. Hmmmm. Something plants are specifically here to do. But I digress.
The definition of Jihad is Holy war. Is there really any doubt that these "Christian Jihadists" consider the cause they undertake here as a Holy war? Their actions & obsessive behavior certainly seem to point in that direction. Jihadists of any kind tend to try & impose their will/opinions upon the rest. They believe that it's their way or the highway. There's no room for opposing opinions, theirs is all that matters. Of course all they have are opinions, very little that's definitive, yet that doesn't stop them.
Common to most, if not all Jihadists, they are fanatical in their actions & beliefs. Psychologically, fanatics tend to be somewhat unstable. To varying degrees of course. It's hard to tell at times to what degree here because we're in cyber space. Although sometimes we can gain great insight through the words expressed & the obsessive behavior . However, it's still nothing more than an educated guess.
Do you guys ever wonder why the number of non LDS Christian posters here is increasing in taking you folks to the woodshed on these threads? Most seem to be fellow Evangelicals, & as w/ many of my Evangelical friends here locally, they are embarrassed by your fanatical actions. They're embarrassed that you claim to represent their views.
Does that translate into the possibility that one of the fanaticals here could actually shoot a Mormon bishop?, someone, a poster, we really know virtually nothing about? Perhaps, but I would think it highly unlikely in this case. Stranger things have happened...........Ireland/England anyone?
Also, EJ, I'm not a lawyer........your misrepresentations never do stop do they?
As you look at the following definition of fanatic, see if these definitions don't apply to your presence here on FR. I'm back to having fun. Best wishes to all for a great week.
fa·nat·ic Noun /fəˈnatik/
Synonyms:
adjective: rabid, bigoted, phrenetic, frenetic
noun: zealot, bigot
fanatics plural
A person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, esp. for an extreme religious or political cause A person with an obsessive interest in and enthusiasm for something, esp. an activity a fitness fanatic
fa·nat·ic Adjective /fəˈnatik/ Filled with or expressing excessive zeal his fanatic energy Web definitions
a person motivated by irrational enthusiasm (as for a cause); "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"--Winston Churchill
marked by excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a cause or idea; "rabid isolationist" http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=fanatic
Fanaticism is a belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause or in some cases sports, or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby. ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanatic
A person who is zealously enthusiastic for some cause, especially in religion; Fanatical; Showing evidence of possession by a god or demon; frenzied, over-zealous http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fanatic
fanaticism - excessive intolerance of opposing views http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=fanaticism
I give it a 5.5 though, overdone and all too familiar hyperbole and unsubstantiated accusations...
Not enough to overcome the fact you find accusing fellow freepers of murder something to giggle about...
Don't worry, that is not possible so even a 10 would have fallen short...
So that is one point for you.
Since my misreprenrtaion never stop, care to go for 2, 3, or more?
Should be easy, and as I have just now demonstrated without use of any excuses, rhetoric or diversion I can admit to being wrong when fact presents itself. It could be a lesson for you.
So you could really just hammer me into the ground as a liar with proof of all these non stop misrepresentations...
I'm game, what say you Reno?
How nice of you, hold that thought please.
With that being said, I look at those I referred to as the Christian Jihadists, & for the better part, I see them as fanatics (please see defintion below), one trick pony's if you will.
Ah, you lost it reno. I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public. You like definitions - here's one that fits you to a tee
HYPOCRITE
1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
— hypocrite adjective
Oh, but this gets better - how so?
Does that translate into the possibility that one of the fanaticals here could actually shoot a Mormon bishop?, someone, a poster, we really know virtually nothing about?
Yet that doesn't stop you from making the inferrence now does it Reno. I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce.
Incapable of winning on the ISSUES, you have to whine in this fashion, tsk tsk reno.
I also don't consider myself having "been taken to the woodshed".
Unless of course, you're talking about being accused of bearing some responsibility for the Bishop's death, smeared by ad hominem and personal attacks, lying, obfuscating, dismissing comments, etc. You know, all of those activities that make for such stimulating and adult conversation.
I tip my hat to you all, you've done an outstanding job.
The mere fact that you and your fellow mormons would stand on the side of those bearing false witness against others solely because we disagree with your theology and doctrine and have the courage to do so openly, says more about you than us. I am now much more aware and informed of who is behind some of those keyboards. It's been an eye-opening experience.
Hope you have a great week.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.