Snow

"...and then I'll add watermelon head and he'll be sorry, oh yes, he'll be so very, very sorry... how dare you notice by offensive behavior..."

Hey Stephen, I see that you just edited your last post to take out the part that says you couldn't care less what I think. (see my quote of your post for comparison). Good choice since it was so dishonest. So what were you thinking in between the original post and the time you went back and edited to be more insulting? Were you just staring at you computer screen, steam rising up under your collar, thinking "OHHH, I didn't call him enough names. I am gonna call him a jerk and see how he likes that. Yeah! That's what I'll do. NO, WAIT! I'll call him a 'bigoted jerk' and then that will really show him. OOHH, OOHH... then for good measure I will say assine. Can I say that an not get moderated? I don't care, I'm really pissed off now. It's a good thing I edited out the part that says I couldn't care less what he thinks. Hopefully I will get this thing edited before he sees it and figures out just how desperately I really do care... AH, AH, AH, I am going to add in lunatic and really show him.. yeah and rant and rave just to prove it. I will make that Snow suffer I tell you... I'm king of the world now!" By the way Stephen, you're still misusing the word bigot.

Ah, but dear Stephen, you do care. If you didn't care you would make up little names like "Mr. Snowball" to call me.This is such an interesing look into your psyche - Serapha is going through it too. You both publically pronounce that you don't care what I say all the while you know that it is untrue and you know that I know it is untrue and we both know that everyone reading your posts know it untrue. What emotional or psychological motivation would drive you or Serapha to say something so obviously contradicted by the facts. Seems deliberately self-destructive to your credibility, doesn't it. Here is another thing with you critic types. You want to be free to mock and bagger and belittle and denouce a thing so personal as another's religious faith, and then act all distraugt when someone notices your behavior and is offended by it. You attack my faith and then act like it is horrible that I speak out against your behavior of attacking my faith. How does that work for you Esteban? How hard is it to twist your thinking in such a knot that such makes sense for you? Have you ever thought about taking the snot out of your voice? Unless the point is blatantly stupid, I could care less when people believe differently than I do. It the tone that I react to.

Hello Serapha,Yes that is fine. It is also untrue. You have told me twice that you are ignoring my posts which means, of course, that you are very much interested in my posts; but it was a nice effort anyway - pretending that you aren't interested. Still in all, I'll try to keep an open mind - I do like you after all - it just you messed up bigiometry that annoys me.

These arguments in favor of the BoM sometimes turn of very fine points of reasoning, much of it esoteric, at least to the layman. I probably would agree and disagree on some of Potters thinking but without spending a lot of time with it, I doubt I would have much insight on it. I suppose the challenge of it would do me good though. Much of the stuff we normally talk about - you know a fair portion of both sides of the argument before you even saying anything; one doesn't have to rev up the brain to much to stake out a fairly safe position. A lot of it is just word games. Know what I mean... Something new would be good. Maybe I'll read a bit more on it.

When you stop the practice of presuming what I think... then I will talk to you. Until then, stew in your own juices. I rise above your type of conduct. That means... I just ignore you. ~serapha~ Don't worry, your participation is not required. You're transparent and you needn't interact with me in order for me to highlight it

Bull, Serapha, Bull.I have been around enough Mormons in enough different places for long enough to know that it just don't work that way. Mormons, as a people, are dying to share their beliefs. I imagine that it has one of the the most significant missionary efforts of any denomination. Sure, it could be that you just ran across a super duper secret group of Mormon hatorators that refused to share their beliefs. More likely they listened to what you had to say and pegged you for what you are. You're just not that tough to figure out. You did say that Mormons aren't Christians, right? (yes that's right) To many that is the worst possible insult you could give and you give it freely. You did say that The Church of Jesus Christ does not believe what the Book of Mormon teaches, didn't you? (yes you did). And you did say that Mormon prophets contradict the Bible and the Book of Mormon didn't you? (uh huh). Many would find that offensive Were you just making conversation? No, your intent is to denounce and marginalize. People, even Mormons (and especially me) react to that. Then you have the gall to deceitfully claim that the Mormons that react to you are hateful just like you claim that Mormons on the other board that take offense to the bigotry and lies to be trolls. You know what people respond well to? Honesty, interest and sincerity. Show a little and see how it works for you because the dishonest passive agressive act ain't working. I thought it was an astounding bit of irony that you are Baptist.

A man's gotta have goals. A man without a goal is life a ship without a rudder, floating listlessly upon the seas. And, a goal not written down is only a wish.Porter, you should write down your goal to be as God, set a due date, map out the steps and then keep us updated. Remeber to make your goal, realistic, objective, measurable and time oriented.

Cal, As I have stated before, my only doctrinal obligation as a Mormon is to truth. I am not bound by any duty to believe something that is not true. In some sense all Mormons believe similarly but often they exercise their free agency and decide to accept whatever the Brethren tell them. On a certain level, that is a safe thing to do - from my perspective because I believe the central claims of the Church and the prophets. On a deeper level, it is an unacceptable thing to do. It can only get you so far. True free agency requires that you do not abdicate decision making to anybody but that eventually you study it out in your own mind, subject it to the test of reason, seek the Holy Ghost and find the right place for the proper exercise of faith. Further, I think it is dangerous to rely on what the Brethren say because outside the scriptures, there is no ultimate understanding of what they are saying - emphasis changes, disagreement exist, policy is updated, misinterpretations abound, false rumors circulate, etc. My belief in the gospel and history of the Church is certainly different than it was 3 years ago. When exposed to a bigger view of how things really are, a view you don't get soley inside the Church, I had my own little crisis of faith. One week I would fret over this new thing I learned about Church history or doctrine or Bible archeology or early Christianity history... and just as soon as I surmounted that test, another mini-crisis would come along. Basically it came down to three choices: 1. Throw it all out the window and leave, 2. Become a social Mormon, 3. Develop a new context into which I could place my newfound "truth." What was never was an option for me was to remain Christian but leave the Mormon Church. I know that there are bright sincere people that do it, but it make no sense to me, not yet anyway and I find most (not all) of them to be philosophically, if not intellectually hypocritical and some of them morally hypocritical. Obiviously I have settled in to a new enlarged understanding and context of how I think Christ, the atonement, the gospel, LDS theology, and LDS history and mankind's humanity fit together. As it turns out, I am othen more orthodox than one might suppose, I am much more fascinated with Mormon history and much more secure in my beliefs. And hey, if I question and doubt too much - I haven't got it all figured out yet - thank goodness.

I am not talking about exaltation from an LDS doctrinal perspective and I am unfamiliar with any religious doctrine of marginalization. I use the words with their usual connotations. Many of the unChristian posts I saw from people who pretend to be Christian at Christianforum are hardly Christian at all in their behavior. They are more interested in acting as Pharisee's than in following Christ. In acting as Pharisees they denounce and marginalize others, probably for a whole host of reasons... inferiority complex and thus a need to puff themselves up (exalt themselves over others -- see! see! I'm saved and you are not; look, look at me and see the face of salvation - look, look at you and note how much more saved -read better- I am than you.); or denounce because of ignorance, evil intention, stupidity, bigotry... take your pick. I see it all there and more.

Cal, I scanned it but don't think it interests me enough to spend much energy on it. One of the reasons being the same as yours: "1) Regarding the Documentary Hypothesis--the author, himself says that he does not believe in the conclusions of the DH as applied to the authorship of the 5 books of moses, but then goes on to use it ANYWAY to try to "prove" the BoM. He points out that the methodology of the DH is controversial and is disbeleived by even some high placed LDS church leaders. The reader is, in essense, invited to pull out his "BS" detector right there. It is hard to have confidence in a theory that even the author doesn't BUY!" ...though I conclude something a bit differently from it than do you. Potter isn't using the conclusions of the documentary theory to support the BoM, he is using the method of inquiry utilized from the documentary theory - so no, my BS detector doesn't go off as he is quite up front about that but I view it simply as an intellectual exercise. The existence of the documentary theory and Potter's ability to draw connections between it and the BoM do nothing significant to prove the BoM. Interesting perhaps to some, but not much more from what I see in my brief scan...

Hi there! Perhaps you wouldlike to give me a reference in the scriptures where "torah" in a wider sence applies to all Hebrew teachings? ~serapha~ The inference being that I am making it up... I wonder what purpose I might have in doing that? Falsely make myself seems smart in comparison to you? I dunno. Why did you point out what you think is an error in Potter's work? Did you think he really doesn't know that the torah is (or that if used incorrectly, it wasn't just a mistake) and that somehow impacts the validity of whatever else he writes? The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001. Torah (tôr´) (KEY) [Heb.,=teachings or learning], Hebrew name for the five books of Moses—the Law of Moses or the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible. The Torah is believed by Orthodox Jews to have been handed down to Moses on Mt. Sinai and transmitted by him to the Jews. It laid down the fundamental laws of moral and physical conduct. The Torah begins with a description of the origin of the universe and ends on the word Israel, after the story of the death of Moses, just before the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites. In a wider sense the Torah includes all teachings of Judaism, the entire Hebrew Bible and the Talmud. and this from the AMP Bible: Ezra 3:2 Then stood up Jeshua son of Jozadak, and his brethren the priests, and Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, and his brethren, and they built the altar of the God of Israel to offer burnt offerings upon it, as it is written in the [The Hebrew word here is torah, and although usually translated "law," that is only one phase of its meaning, and so to use it, to the exclusion of its fuller sense, may defeat its intended purpose at times. The word torah is used more than 200 times in the Old Testament. When capitalized, Torah means the whole of the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses. Says Baker's Dictionary of Theology (E.F. Harrison et al., eds.), "The Hebrew torah originally signified authoritative instruction (Prov. 1:8); hence it most commonly means an 'oracle' or 'word' of the Lord, whether delivered through an accredited spokesman such as Moses, or a prophet or priest. Thus torah comes to have the wider sense of 'instruction' (as in RV margin) from God.... It is therefore a synonym for the whole of the revealed will of God--the word, commandments, ways, judgments, precepts, etc., of the Lord, as in Gen. 26:5, and especially throughout Ps. 119."] instructions of Moses the man of God. (Whole Chapter: Ezra 3 In context: Ezra 3:1-3)

You, my friend, are absolutely correct. I was trying to trip Peace up but she didn't fall for it.

Seriously, would you explain this to me... either by the D&C or whichever prophet teaches this? I don't really that is a church doctrine. It might be a church teaching, but I don't think that is a doctrine. Anyway.... I want to understand it. ~serapha~ Serapha,I don't know what you are getting at. The D&C doesn't say that. I said it. It means that the clowns at Christianforums are far from Christian in their behavior when the attack and denigrate the Church of Jesus Christ.

I dunno,I can't speak for others but if I used the words inactive or non-members, I am not attacching any qualitative judgement to them - no more than the word redhead means your head is red. So, no, I wouldn't agree in my case but acknowledge that the gospel has yet to relieve all people of their propensity to behave like imperfect human beings.

I think the feet actually belong to Tori Amos. I have never been a foot man nor a Tori Amos fan but now I may be a bit of both.These feet are made for walk'n and that's just what they'll do. One of these these feet are gonna walk all over you.

Esteban,You have no clue what you are talking about, do you? You open your mouth and stuff just comes out. You say that you can't prove a miracle? What planetoid did you learn that from. If someone had some water (that was tested and shown to be water) and someone then turned the water to wine which was tested and shown to be wine, would that not be proof? According to you, such a thing could not be proven. Have you ever considered drinking said wine and then going driving the wrong way down the I15? What you can't prove, however, is that the Bible is true or that Christ lived. Well, if you did prove it - that would be a miracle. Let me define hypocrite: someone who claims the Bible is true but can't prove it, and demands proof that the BOM is true, Mr Snow lover. Another example of you making things up out of whole cloth is this dishonest and fabricated statement: "You put all Born Again Christians in the same category as Ed Decker and Walter Martin as you mock and criticize me and others simply because we disagree with you theologically and you label us all as you put us all in your neat pigeon holes." Frankly that is plain untrue and you are an untruth teller for saying it Mr. Snow lover. 1. I don't put all born-agains into the same category and the lying, hypocritical, immoral fake Dr. Martin and Ed Decker - just the lying or the hypocritical ones. Another example of you fabricating untruth is your false claim that I mock and criticize anyone because I disagree with them theologically. Hogwash. I disagree with Maureen, I disagree will Cal, I disagree with Winnie, I disagree with Jason, I disagree with Kay, I disagree with Biz, I disagree with Mother Teresa Via Verde de la Cruz of the Seven Wounds. I don't mock them, least not much lately. Why? Because they aren't hypocritical liars like the fake Dr. Walter Martin. I mock you, not because I disagree with your flavor of the month, gospel-lite, flee from responsibility, feel-good theology (though I think your theology silly, I don't find it particularly mock-worthy) but because you attack the Mormon Church and you do it with a snide tone and a pasty complexion. Tell us, what date Enclycopdia Biblica did I use, since you claim it is outdated? By the way Stephen. I don't think that you understand the word "bigot" cause you are using it wrong. {One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.} I am not intolerant of you because your religion differs dear boy, the way that you are of Mormons. I mock you because of your behavior towards Mormons. Now don't talk to me for the next 20 minutes. I'm gonna go get saved.

Because if you can...identify them, you can label them, and if you label them, you can denounce them, and if you can denounce them, you can marginalize them, And if you can marginalize another group, you can exhalt yourself and imagine that you are superior instead of an unChristian group of pathetic bigots who will do anything and say anything to identify, label, denounce and marginalize other to exhalt yourself....

Yes of course you would have Winnie, that what makes a real Mormon ambassador and Christian. What we need are more Christian, Mormon throat throttlers.

I think that one of the funniest things about that site is that to not be considered a cultist (considered, marginailized, denounced, attacked, condescened to, and segregated) you have to agree to a non-biblical dogma - the Greek Pagan influnced Nicene Creed, championed and managed by a serial killer. No, Porter, not Orson Porter Rockwell, I am speaking about The Murderer Constantine. Seems counter intuitive does it not?

I apologize serapha,I assumed, apparently incorrectly, that you would understand that I was referring any argument that you might makes that The Church of Jesus Christ is not what it purports to be or that the Church of Jesus Christ is not Christian or that Mormons, etc and along the way, as an added bonus, I will be delighted to illustrate the hypocrisy inherrent in your position. I did not think it required mentioning that I probably won't argue with you about: -things I agree with -things that are irrelevent to the issues above that I don't care about -things that involve small furry animals and large meat processing plants. PS. I bet Potter was really embarrassed when you told him that you thought he misused the word Torah. What did he say? And oh yeah, will I need to be so meticulous in everything I say with you or can I take for granted that reasonably said things will be reasonably understood? Oh, and oh yeah again, although I didn't see the context, I imagine you know that torah applies, in a wider sense, to all Hebrew teachings?

You're going to post your disagreement with Potter and then expect someone to rebutt your rebuttal? Seems like you ought to email Potter with your concerns.

Serapha, I think he meant that when you said "all" (of us did on your board). Really, how many of us? 2? 5? Certainly not all; and of all those that did, how many of them were really trolls. Of course, troll is just a label you use to denounce. A more honest spin would be that certain people just don't like it when others try to marginalize them and attack something so personal as their faith and lack the good sense to stay out of the mud that the marginalizer muck around in. What link did you post that now seems to be missing?

I'm thinking that there probably isn't an "anti" Mormon viewpoint (and I use the word anti advisably) with which I am not familiar, esoteric material excluded. A book you reccommend may interest me but it would have to be fairly earth-shattering to jump to the front of my reading queue, which is at about 18 right now. And, I probably won't ask you to read anything particularly lenghty anyway. But I am generally willing to give the other side fair play and thus am fairly open.Right now I am going to dinner with a group of traveling dental hygenists I met on the subway last night but I will be back soon so go ahead with a topic if you like. BTW, I think I like you.

Not to worry, your posts were very revealing. It's just not that tough.In any discussion we engage, why don't we just agree that you won't hold the Church of Jesus Christ to any standard to which you will not hold your own. K?