#1, I try to operate by a standard of how I would receive, ignore, or offer alternative considerations were somebody to label me a certain tag...say by either the label "Satan" -- or the phrase "anti-Mormon" that you've twice used on this thread (#139, #162) & so many others cavalier use. "Anti-Mormon" isn't exactly an endearing term, either, John. Do we expect all Mormons to rush in & chastise you for using that term vs. us? (Not on your life).
Yet, I love my Lds relatives & friends. Enough to love them w/the truth. I am anti-ism; but not against the Mormon person -- just like I am anti-homosexuality; but not against the homosexual person. Are you consistent, John? Are you & EVERYBODY who opposes homosexuality an 'anti-homosexual?' If you don't think so, then be consistent & stop using the "anti" terms.
Back to that standard I mentioned, yes…if Elsie doesn’t like to be labeled as “Satan,” I suppose consistency would be in order. Why don’t you ask Elsie if he meant it in the same way Jesus addressed Peter. Peter wasn’t “Satan,” yet Jesus spoke to the one speaking thru him, “Get thee behind me, Satan.” (Or do you wish to give a kneejerk reaction & automatically accuse Jesus of “demonizing” Peter, too?)
Obviously, demons really produce doctrines. To the extent that the apostle Paul wrote Timothy about the ”doctrines of demons.” (Have you yet asked Elsie to qualify what he meant; was he accusing you of being a mouthpiece for demonic doctrines?)
I don't think that Elsie's reacting to a statement of mine by calling me Satan is the kind of response that is pleasing to God. That it went unchallenged...This takes "demonizing one's opponents" to a new level. (JM, #139)
Oh, I think that the MORMONs have that locked up with a lifetime award! (Elsie, #143)
Such vast inconsistencies, John.
Elsie references the devil in a July 2011 post aimed @ you. Yet, what? You’ve never criticized Joseph Smith, his jail-bud early Lds apostle (turned later Lds “Prophet”) John Taylor, or the Book of Mormon and long-time Lds church interpretation of 1 Nephi 14:9-17 for labeling Christians as being of the devil?
Where’s your provocation consistency, John?
Do these following quotes provoke you – as they do us?
* "What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the DEVIL, by which he deceives the whole world" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.270).
* John Taylor stated: "Christianity...is a perfect pack of nonsense..the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p.167).
1 Nephi 14:9-10 says there are only two churches: The church of the Lamb & the Church of the Devil. In the opinion of Mormon leaders, the church of the devil ("abominable church...whose foundation is the devil"-- 1 Nephi 14:9).
* ”And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the CHURCH OF THE DEVIL; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.” (1 Nephi 14:10-11)
* ”And when the day cometh that the wrath of God is poured out upon the mother of harlots, which is the great and abominable church of all the earth, whose founder is the DEVIL, then, at that day, the work of the Father shall commence, in preparing the way for the fulfilling of his covenants, which he hath made to his people who are of the house of Israel.” (1 Nephi 14:17)
Lds leaders claim that this devil’s church of 1 Nephi 14 is the great non-Mormon church that branched out into Protestantism.
They’ve slandered us worldwide, John. For these past 180 years.
Elsie's right at least on one thing here: Smith & his disciples have a locked-up lifetime award on devilish accusations of the Christian church...with nary a "peep" of protest from most contemporary restorationists, I might add.
Bingo! Thank you for admitting the obvious. Now that I got you to blink, I can easily dispense of your quotes of Mormon leaders doing what Elsie did by stating AGAIN that I have never been a Mormon. There is no link between me and a bunch of wicked old Mormons of the past, except for the common sinful human nature that links us all. The RLDS church that I joined had spent decades of difficult ministry trying to preach, because listeners wanted to know how the RLDS was different from the LDS. The RLDS was falsely accused of many things that it had no connection to or sympathy with. Neither myself nor my church are responsible for what a bunch of wicked old Mormons of the past have said. Therefore, to suggest a responsibility that does not exist is dishonest and unworthy of continuation.
As for my calling people anti-Mormon, what is wrong with that, if nearly everything they write about "mormonism" is intended to make anyone judged to be a part of "mormonism" look bad?
Christ knows who His people are. When Luke 12:35-48 is fulfilled, His confrontation with those supposed to be doing His work on Earth will cleanse His church of whatever false doctrines have crept into it. When that day comes, I would rather be found doing things to build up His church than doing things to tear it down. If "mormonism" needs a major cleansing, which it does, "antimormonism" is also due for a cleansing, which it will get, whether it wants it or not.
ONE thing? you 1/3 beast you!