Atheoligical Tendency ~Open~

One Living Truth Ministries ^ | Oct 2006 | Ministry news letter

[greyfoxx39]

So I am not teaching against any true prophet of God by any means, indeed quite the opposite, I fight to expose those who claim that title for their own ends, those who take and twist and revise God's word to fit their own purposes, not his. I fight against those who claim the title and name of Christ all the while redefining the already defined in a effort to promote and support Earthly desires. That is a place I am proud to be and a position I am finding easy to defend simply by using their own words.

[fproy2222]

Your standards say, the Bible is false, by your standard.

+=+=+
Go ahead - try to tear down the Bible so your founder's tales sound better.

++++++++++++++

I am not tearing down the Bible. I just think it would be fair for you and yours to use the same standard on the bible as you do on Latter-Day revelations from Heavenly Father.

You see, it is your standards, when applied to the Bible that tears it down.

Or should we do as you say and not as you do?

[fproy2222]

F - even smith’s personal diary in his handwriting contradicts the official account,

+++++++++++++++

please show me

[fproy2222]

First off, you are using Joseph’s direct writings, and the second hand writings of others and comparing them to just Paul’s first hand writings.

=+=+=

Who cares

++++++++++++++=

I do.

[ejonesie22]

I am but a humble servant and solider of the one true Lord.

But thank you.

[ejonesie22]

I agree, you guys are not tearing the bible down, you have reinvented it whole cloth to fit the so called visions of a "prophet" who in turn you pick and choose from what his said to fit you needs.

We have applied the same standard to the works of the LDS as we did the Bible, the standards of Truth and Consistency.

The works of the LDS were found sadly lacking....

[fproy2222]

First off, you are using Joseph's direct writings, and the second hand writings of others and comparing them to just Paul's first hand writings.
=+=+=

So he is comparing apples to apples?

I can see where that would be a problem for you. As I am rapidly learning by reading them, first hand sources are the last thing the LDS wants to go by.

+++++++++++++++

If you study what I said, then remember that you forgot to highlight the part that says some of the accounts are from others (look at post 146 to see what he highlighted and what he passed over by leaving it small, I do not know how to add bold type) you would see that you would have to say that:

apples + oranges = apples

Did you intend to mislead on purpose, or was it a mistake on your part?

[greyfoxx39]

Well, these kids, who happened to come home from church crying over this, didn’t pick it out of thin air. They were pretty young, and someone had to have said it. Can you tell me where they might have received said information? My friend’s daughter was livid over this and rightly so, I would be also.

The truth is that mormonism teaches that in order to gain the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, (an equivalent to what most Christians regard as "Heaven") one must be baptized, confirmed in the LDS faith and must take part in secret ordinances in the LDS temples. One of those ordinances is "marriage for eternity", or "sealing for time and eternity".

One cannot enter this "Heaven" otherwise, except for very few rare instances.

The mormon practice of baptizing the dead is, in their terms, to give the souls of those departed who did not have the opportunity to avail themselves of these LDS ordinances the opportunity now, to thus enter the mormon equivalent of Christian "Heaven".

So, the bare bones of what your friend's daughter was livid over is, in effect warranted.

One cannot go to the mormon equivalent of "Heaven" unless they are married by LDS rules. The reply that you got was a "half-truth" obscured by leaving out the important facts. It's mind-boggling that someone would try that tactic on this forum when there are so many of us watching.

[fproy2222]

So by that standard smith is a false prophet
+++++++++++++++
You do know that you are putting two events together as if they were one.

Are you misleading on purpose, or just following someone who is misleading you?

[ejonesie22]

No mistake, you said BOTH direct writings and second hand writings, not either or. Direct writings from Smith vs. Direct writings from Paul, both can be weighed the same, at least as evidence.

Misleading is your game, not mine.

[MHGinTN]

Bwahahaha you, resty-fred, the master at pretending confusion in order to deceive, ask such a question?

[ejonesie22]

...It's mind-boggling that someone would try that tactic on this forum when there are so many of us watching.

No it's not, it is ingrained from cradle to grave, it becomes an automatic response to repeat the same thing over and over, even when caught, even in front of others who know better. When finally cornered the tactic is to shift focus, change subject, obfuscate and finally cry bigot or pull the victim card.

I was taught this some two weeks ago by one who knows the game and knows it well because he played it himself for many years. What is so amazing to me is how correct he was and how I missed the pattern that is actually so obvious.

[greyfoxx39]

Don't forget C.S. LEWIS!

[fproy2222]

No mistake, you said BOTH direct writings and second hand writings, not either or. Direct writings from Smith vs. Direct writings from Paul, both can be weighed the same, at least as evidence.

Misleading is your game, not mine.

+++++++++

YOU and YOURS are the ones that are saying that the second hand accounts should have the same weight as first hand accounts.

Those who only use the accounts written by Brother Joseph to the accounts only written bey Paul cannot make the clams that you folks make.

You rely on second hand information and then infer that Brother Joseph wrote it.

[ejonesie22]

look at post 146 to see what he highlighted and what he passed over by leaving it small, I do not know how to add bold type)

BTW that he WAS ME.

I marked in bold where you were saying both Smith and Paul's DIRECT work, again apples to apples...

I can't see why this is hard, but I understand, your training runs long and deep, heavy on the rhetoric, very, very lite on the logic...

[greyfoxx39]

I'm beginning to think that stourme is one of "Ballard's Buddies", directly ordered to "go out into the internet and do battle for the mormon cause".

Anyway, fresh meat is always welcome. ;)

[ejonesie22]

LOL...

Again you put forth BOTH. You cannot not have it both ways. If they are using DIRCT FIRST HAND WIRTINGS from both Paul and Smith, the second hand accounts are irrelevant if first hand accounts are referenced for both men.

Keep swinging...

[MHGinTN]

That one is ill prepared, not even knowledgable of his own cult’s documents.

[ejonesie22]

I see my post was removed, must have pulled an abuse, despite the fact I referenced no individual. Some how I find that satisfying, means I am hitting close to the truth.