Snow

Yeah,I dying for you to make that argument instead of just saying that you could. Go on AS, dazzle us. Note: I am not actually dying. Just a figure of speech.

Who is he to apologize for something he knows nothing about. He has your side of the story and that's it. He sounds a little sanctimonious, IMO. M. While we are on the subject. I would like to apologize for Spam and indeed, all canned meats and meat by-products. Sorry.I also feel bad about the French Revolution and have a great deal of personal sorrow for the way that Michael Einser treats rank and file employees.

SRM,What? Do you mean that you don't accept everything on that website and actual fact? Personally I wouldn't even bother reading it. There is enough information from reliable sources that you don't need to turn to biased, amateur, uneducated sources such as Krass Katt of Cult of the Dead Cow Communications. Here's what I find more interesting. What does it say about someone would who openly acknowledge that Krass Kat of the Cult of the Dead Cow was his source???

Fair enough Sanct. I have to run right now, but I'll give you some fair feedback tomorrow. Have a good night.

What's going on is obvious. With him in person, you aren't playing your passive agressive bit and so he thinks that maybe you were unfairly chastized. I disagree. Did your friend apologize for your having a short memory too? What you said was: "you... are acting like a jerk. So when you tell me I am or am acting like a jerk and say stuff life I am the unsavory sort that others are forced to tolerate it may or may not be true - matter of opinion really - but it most definately paints your kettle a delightful shade of hypocritical.

Cal, I know exactly what you mean/meant. I am telling you that I am Mormon I know what I, as a TBM and orthodox Mormon - like the other orthodox Mormons- believe. You said this: "He (the Mormon God) apparently couldn't give a rat's ____ about the kid next door who just died of cancer." Find me one single believing Mormon, out of the millions that believe, that think that about God. Just one Cal. Find me a single Mormon that accepts you characterization of our idea of God. Just one. Only one. Go on. One.

Cal, Your argument makes more sense now that you have changed it. Thank you.

Snow Thats okay I haven't bought much of what you have said either. I guess you're one of those people the church has to tolerate. Someone they always have to clean up after. I have spoken to a local high priest here, presented the discussion we had on this forum and he has agreed to sit down with me and help get some answers. Interestingly.. before he agreed to do so he insisted on 2 things. 1) that I prepare for the discussion with some relevant scripture which he provided and 2) that I allow him to apologize for what transpired here on the thread.. Which I agreed to. Thanks for your patience and understanding. Let me get this straight. Your insulting me (" I guess you're one of those people the church has to tolerate. Someone they always have to clean up after.") right after you got through complaining that I was rude. Is that a little like the pot calling the kettle hypocritical? Why yes, yes it is. And, that local high priest made you agree to let him apologize for what transpired here? How's that? Did he force you to come in with a false agenda and insult Mormonism or did he force me to recognize it in you, thereby ostensibly offending you? That's odd, eh? Why yes, yes it is.

No, that makes you a man of no faith. Having no faith is not immoral. Paul Toscano lost his faith. Ask him how great it is to live without faith. Bat takes illegal drugs (mushrooms) and dextromethorphan hydrobromiden. Apparently he thinks that is a good substitute for faith. Ask him how great that is.

I told you what I, an orthodox Mormon, believes. How much more of an authority can you get on what I believe? Well if you're going to change your argument, then go ahead. That is not what you originally asserted. Do you want me to provide the direct quote?

I know what your point is but the argument still is made my others.

Yeah Bat, Explain that. This is not an insult but people far more intelligent and educated and logical than you (and me) accept it and believe with a certainty greater than anything else in their lives. You think there is nothing to faith other than a simple willingness to believe. To those that have made the "leap of faith," it is something else entirely. Because you (meaning CAl) can't physically test the faith, you assume that it, as something more than a simple willingness to believe, does not exist. Yet, for those that have "experienced the mystery" it is as real as Terry Bradshaw's polished noggin.

As far as actual translation goes, I don't think that he did. I don't understand the connection of the papyrus to the BoA but it seems to me, and I am decently read on the subject, JS didn't rely on physical source material for the BoM, the BoA, the BoM or the Inspired Version in order to produce the verbiage. They, like the U&T or the seer stone may have been "props" or tools to get him into the frame of mind to receive the revelation (if one believes it was revelation) but as he matured as a seer, such tools became unnecessary.

I'm teaching Priesthood on March 7th (and possibly Feb 29th - in which case I'd make it a 2-part lesson). The 5th and 1st Sundays are not from the manual so I can teach on anything I want provided it is within in certain guidelines - the guideline I'll be using is that my source material will all be out of General Authority articles from the Ensign. My topic is going to be the real translation process of the Book of Mormon - how it worked, who was involved, how long it took, where were the plates during the translation, when was the Urim and Thummin used and when was the seer stone in the hat used and where did the seer stone come from and what do ya'll think about that... Of course, in keeping with Priesthood lesson schemes, I am going to have a context, beyond just talking about history for history's sake, but I wonder how everyone will react when the hear the rock in the hat story. I expect a bit for backlash and so I will be properly prepared with a complete bibliography to hand out.

Hey logic-boy (CanardFier) Cal thinks he has a pretty strong logical argument in the following: "admitt(ing) that God does INDEED bless, favor, and heal WITHOUT the mormon priesthood being involved, you... establish(es) that Mormon Priesthood is UNNECESSARY" Personally I think that the argument barely makes sense let alone proves anything. You're a good test of reason. What say you - if God were to act through not priesthood channels, does that then mean that the priesthood is superfluous?

Cal said this: and then he said that I, Snow, was making a bald assertion when I said that no, we don't believe that God blesses only the righteous priesthood holders. I say that God has a pretty solid history, according to our faith, of blessing and intervening in the affairs of mankind to help mankind and alleviate suffering. For example, we believe the Founding Fathers were blessed of God to create the US Consititution that all man might be blessed, directly or indirectly, for it. So the question is, is LDS priesthood necessary for God to intervene in the affairs of mankind? I bet not one Mormon thinks that. Oh, also; Cal says that the Mormon God is heartless. If any Mormon reading this thinks that Mormons believe that God does not have a heart, by all means speak up.

Cal,How on earth can you object to being called a silly sort when this is what you post: You said: ""He can alliviate suffering and refuses to do so on a regular basis. Oh, he does it for whom he "choses", according to mormons. Only if you are rightous enough and have the "priesthood" I said: No that's not what we believe. You said: That's a bald assertion. Tell me that is not silly. You misrepresent our beliefs (any Mormon in the world can tell you that we believe God blesses people who are not righteous holders - and I gave examples), I correct you about what I/we believe and you retort that I am baldly asserting what I/we believe - as if I am not qualified to say what I/we believe. That's silly. You're silly. You want to be taken seriously but then say stuff like that. Tell you what. You find a single Mormon (out of the hundreds and hundreds who belong to LDSTalk) who thinks that God refuses to bless those who are rigtheous priesthood holders and I will stop thinking that you are silly. Burden of proof my boy. You are the one who is asserting and asserting an unlikely thing at that. Didn't they learn you nothing at science class. Burden of proof.

Okay then Sanctuary, I don't buy what you are saying but in as much as I could possibly, remotely, truly, madly be mistaken, I'll let you do your thing and then we'll all know what your intentions are. Have at it.

Okay then Sanctuary, I don't buy what you are saying but in as much as I could possibly, remotely, truly, madly be mistaken, I'll let you do your thing and then we'll all know what your intentions are. Have at it.

Cut to the quick. Why yes, you were willing look past Joseph Smith's full adult life of crimes, breaking the law where ever he went, hanging out with those murderous ruffians the demonic danites, yes, willing to look past it all and look right on to Mormons worshipping the creator of the creator and taking the place of Christ.I get some of these wrong, but you I ain't got wrong. Maybe it is just me, but if I were interested and honest, I would have perhaps said something along the lines of Hey, I heard Joseph Smith was not an honest guy and had been arrested. Does anybody know if he was ever convicted on something? Granted, I have heard mostly from disreputable antiMormon sources but am interested in hearing the other side. What I wouldn't have done is ask set up question, I answers which I already knew and then maybe snide absurd statement like, Who, now you're scarring me cuz you think yoour going to takeover and fire God. That's just me. How's that inner light there burning? Not so brightly?

Yeah, maybe but I not trying to hide that from anyone.Quick, who am I impersonating: With all due respect and no intention of harming, you all are scaring me cuz I wonder if you worship the creator or the creator of the creator. It is all so confusing, sounding like you intend to replace Christ when you all become Gods but how can that be seeings how Joseph Smith's whole adult life was criminal since he broke the law everywhere he went, you know, beings how he was involved with them murdering danites and all and he really did deserve the tar, not to mention the feathering but you know I am just asking because I want to know the truth and stuff so when I make these snide and remarks I am not really ill-intentioned, just a seeker of knowledge really. Sure. And I have idiot stamped smack in the middle of my forehead. If you want answers, drop the act and ask. If you are trolling (ill-intentioned) then do it in the open.

Uncomfortable? Hardly. There are bunches of folk anxious to answer honest question. No one like subterfuge though.

My personal favorite argument.Hey, a monkey eats his own feces so you know it has to be natural. Good thinking!

Decembers preceeded by October.Let's be real though Trident. Regardless of your personal preference for Benny Hinn, there is quite a bit of difference between the likes of him and other TV Evangelists and significant Christian theologians. Most all TV Evangelists (them being the ones that I criticize) are laughed at by a big, big big number of the general population. Like em or not, you have acknowledge that.

Peace, I'm the posting police tonight. Stop quoting 150 lines of other's posts just to tell them that you liked it. It is a pain to scroll down through all the duplication. Just tell them you like the post or quote a relevant passage and use "..." Thank you and go pick up your room.