Mormons As "blind Followers"

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

He's been Emperor ever since he turned Earth into a new Krypton. You will be punished for your insolence.

Oh snap. I never got the memo with the TPS reports.

[Zoidberg]

If you think the only downside to sexual promiscuity is physical, namely, disease, etc., then you must check out the doctrine on the issue. It is a matter of body and spirit.

Again, you are unable to set aside the notion that homosexuality is a sin. I won't ask you to ask yourself if there could be a possibility that it is not. Rather, why don't you ask yourself this question: "Could there be a possibility that a person can sincerely believe that homosexuality is not a sin?"? What I was referring to was the physical/mental part which is the exact thing selek mentioned. I was replying to him. What I or you consider doctrine is irrelevant to people who don't believe the same way as we do.

I don't believe drinking alcohol is a disease; I believe chosing to drink and drive is wrong, though; and I believe advocating for such is also wrong.

Same with sexual acts.

Huh? Because your possibility of killing someone greatly increases when you choose to have sexual acts? Wait, wait, weren't sexual acts a part of God's plan? I'm confused. Also, your possibility of killing someone while you are drunk driving does not become okay and even sacred if you are married to a person of the opposite sex.

You'll be judged, either way.

I still try not to judge (not to say that I never do, but no one's perfect). Being judged by God is not the same as being judged by people. I don't feel I should be excused in judging other people if other people are judging me. That's kind of "an eye for an eye" thing, don't you think?

I agree that there may be a time for parents to say "we have taught you what we think of [such and such]. We won't support you in that, but as far as you are concerned, we love and support you. Not all your actions, however. [What parent ever did support all their childrens' choices?]

I believe we all have our own issues to deal with in regards to putting off the "natural man."

This is so true.

Zakuska, why is my analogy bad? Didn't Joseph Smith die pretty young? Besides, I was addressing selek personally. I am not familiar with his experiences, so I might be wrong. You can substitute anything else for "mormon" that would seem suitable to you. I believe that persecution has caused the Saints a great deal of emotional problems. Am I wrong?

[bluebell]

I stated your doctrines as your Standard Works (Journal of Discourses) state them.

The JOD is not an LDS standard work. It's not considered 'doctrine' at all, though some of LDS doctrine is spoken of in the discourses.

[Lightbearer]

In the thread about whether pioneer Mormons were more "bloodthirsty" (referring to MMM), an explantion of the cultural context noted there was a very strong emphasis on obediance (with a note about someone's great grandfather getting excommunicated for going to a dance, or something like this).

Fast forward to today - anti-Mormons accuse LDS of being "blind sheep".

Beyond the pejorative characterization, isn't the basic assertion correct?

There is an emphasis on obediance, and an admonition to support & follow local leaders, so why are TBMs so defensive when others assert many Mormons will blindly follow their leaders' direction? It's not as though this is some kind of dramatic accusation that parts widely from reality.

Understood the direction today is more along the lines of individual interpretation in following the spirit, but cultures rarely make 180 degree turns. In the case of the priesthood ban, the LDS people have impressively done a turnabout, but in the case of obediance, it's not as though there has been a revelation & direction to "forget everything we've said about obediance, make your own decisions".

I just don't understand why TBMs get so upset when others point out the LDS emphasis - and effective result - regarding obediance. The historic & (many) contemporary examples are overwhelming.

No, maybe some "blindly obey" but I do not. I know in whom I have entrusted. I trust not in the arm of flesh, I trust the Lord and His servants. I trust in the spirit of the Lord who can lead me to the "truth of all things." I do not understand why the faithless critics of the Church are offended when I call them Apostates or Anti-Mormon liars. When you say we are "blindly following" our leaders that implies we are deceived, or are fools...anyone would take offence at such an outrageous suggestion. It is the hallmark of rebellion to mock the Saints who are obedient to the Lord's commandments. The only blindness spoken of in the scriptures are those who are blinded by Satan and his servants:

(3 Nephi 2:1-2) "And it came to pass that thus passed away the ninety and fifth year also, and the people began to forget those signs and wonders which they had heard, and began to be less and less astonished at a sign or a wonder from heaven, insomuch that they began to be hard in their hearts, and blind in their minds, and began to disbelieve all which they had heard and seenâ??Imagining up some vain thing in their hearts, that it was wrought by men and by the power of the devil, to lead away and deceive the hearts of the people; and thus did Satan get possession of the hearts of the people again, insomuch that he did blind their eyes and lead them away to believe that the doctrine of Christ was a foolish and a vain thing."

The Apostle Peter saw the blindness caused by a "mist of darkness"

(2 Peter 2:17) "These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever."

Lehi and Nephi saw this mist:

(1 Nephi 12:17) "And the mists of darkness are the temptations of the devil, which blindeth the eyes, and hardeneth the hearts of the children of men, and leadeth them away into broad roads, that they perish and are lost."

That is what the true "blind followers of the blind" are and there state is awful, because they can never partake of the tree which represents "the love of God." When we obey with the "eye of faith" we can obtain the blessings of heaven and we "can know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself.

And yes there has been a revelation and direction on whether to obey or not, in fact it is quite old but it applies equally as well today:

(Joshua 24:15) "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

[rocmonkey]

Basically, it all comes down to this.

Claim: Mormons blindly follow their leaders.

Response of LDS: No, I do not blindly follow my leaders.

You'd think this would be case closed(?)

But no, instead we get:

Poo Flinging Mammal: No, you do follow your leaders blindly. "So and so" said this. And then thereâ??s the teaching about this. So, you disagree with these prophets; therefore you follow them blindly.

Response of LDS: Huh?

Poo Flinging Mammal: Exactly. Your god changes.

Response of LDS: Huh?

Poo Flinging Mammal: You blindly follow your leaders.

Response of LDS: No we donâ??t.

Poo Flinging Mammal: I know what you do and believe better than you do. In 1978 a janitor lost his job for doing such and such.

Response of LDS: CFR

Poo Flinging Mammal: Exactly. Your god changes. You follow blindly.

Response of LDS: Huh?

Poo Flinging Mammal: Context doesnâ??t matterâ?¦ I win.

And thus, I have summed up the future of this thread. It can probably be closed now.

Actually, if someone can show any place, even one, where the LDS leaders said to do as you're told, especially if they say 'whether its right or wrong' doesn't matter, then the members were following blindly. It only takes once to make it so. I gave three and I'm positive I can find the exact wording some here think needs to be given.

I believe modern Mormons still follow blindly and I gave a couple of examples of that.

[Jan]

Turley, at the 2007 FAIR conference (paraphrasing):

There is no such thing as blind obedience. Everyone has agency and accountability.

[Doctor Steuss]

Actually, if someone can show any place, even one, where the LDS leaders said to do as you're told, especially if they say 'whether its right or wrong' doesn't matter, then the members were following blindly. It only takes once to make it so. I gave three and I'm positive I can find the exact wording some here think needs to be given.

I believe modern Mormons still follow blindly and I gave a couple of examples of that.

You crack me up.

[selek]

Boob jobs aside, what are the physical hidden costs? Lower life expectancy? Might it be because of constant discrimination and bashing by family members? How about this: women who only have sex with women are at less risk for contracting syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes HPV and HIV than women who have intercourse with men. Furthermore, if a woman only has sex with women who only has sex wit women who only has sex with women...etc. (let's just say two lesbian virgins hook up and only have sex with each other from then on), this risk becomes miniscule in comparison with heterosexual women. Such lesbians are also at a lower risk for developing cervical cancer. here's a source: http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Health_Ca...ited_States.pdf I know the picture is quite different with gay men and they are more at risk for HIV and other nasty stuff than heterosexual men. But it could actually be more advantageous to a woman's health to only have sex with another woman. So, if it were perfectly accepted and you don't have to deal with emotional issues, it is healthier to be a lesbian. Or would you put gay men and gay women into different categories and suggest that only male homosexuality is bad, as some people have done? (Can't help remembering a lovely Christian polygyny-minded guy who justified having a threesome this way with his hypothetical two wives - let the mods have mercy on me). As for the mental issues, wouldn't you feel bad if most of your environment were hostile to you because you are mormon, for instance? I've had such an experience, with my family being the most hostile, as everybody else didn't really care and therefore left me alone for the most part.

You also ignore the evidence that lesbian relationships produce radically higher instances of domestic violence, depression, and suicide. I find it fascinating that as a putative beleiver, you are far more concerned about the temporal repurcussions while giving short shrift to the spiritual. Intriguing.......and telling.

If your son is a minor, you have a perfectly valid right to not give him condoms or to let his girlfriend sleep over. If your son has moved out and is living his own independent life, he will probably be able to get his own condoms and sleep with his girlfriend at his own place (besides, who has ever had any kind of sex at their in-laws house with them snoring on the other side of the wall? not me!). Would you let her sleep over if she stayed in a different bed? A different room? If he really wants to have sex with his girlfriend so much that he would do it in the same house you are at, he would probably eventually stop making long visits to your house altogether. What hypocrisy is is thinking that you can feel righteous when all you are doing is preventing "unrighteous behavior" within your house. if you are really so concerned, you should be trying to prevent such behavior outside of the house, as well.

I agree- yet only a few posts earlier, you were taking us to task for precisely that.

Are you suggesting that homosexuality is an addiction? or a disease? An alcoholic either knows they have an addiction problem or is in denial (I'm not an alcoholic... I can stop any time ). Most gay people who know they're gay don't think they are addicted or sick, so why would you think that if you treat them as you would an alcoholic would help? There are some gay people in denial, but you probably don't have a problem with them, huh?

So that's the objective measure of illness, addiction, and anti-social behavior? Whether the person acting out on these impulses beleives himself to be ill, addicted, or anti-social? What an absurd standard!

I feel that if I judge not, I shall not be judged.

The correct phrasing of that scripture is "Judge not unrighteously, lest ye be judged." We will be judged on how we judge others. And that means we will be condemned for calling evil, good and good, evil.

And I have suggested a way for you to do this on this thread and the one about "loving the sinner", and have provided justification of why I think it would work better than constantly reminding someone they're a sinner. What evidence have you that constantly reminding someone they are a sinner actually helps bring them home?

I do not condone or encourage a constant barrage or haranguing, and never have. That has never been my position.

By the same token, looking the other way, pretending that they're harming no one while they "play house" provides tacit support. By failing to condemn such behavior, I am offering de facto approval.

And if it does, that it is not detrimental for their well-being because they give up a part of their identity they consider crucial to for no other reason than to please their parents?

No- I am suggesting that they follow a higher standard than the whims of their genitals. Human beings are not cattle rutting in the field. Sexuality and lust are facets of human personalities and souls- are not even remotely the sum of who a person is. I object to and resent someone teaching another to say "I am a gay", or "I am homosexual" as though it categorizes their entire being.

And no, I would not expect someone to give up a part of their identity "just to please their parents." We are, however, talking about immutable natural laws and commandments given by God. Can you, as a beleiver, accept that his commandments are somewhat higher than the current degredation of the species found so fashionable by Hollywood?

I'm not suggesting feigned indifference. I'm not suggesting that you be hypocritical. I believe that if you love a person, you will at least be able to want to understand their point of view. And when you can relate to people, you naturally tend to be more empathic.

And if their point of view is that copulating with animals or close relatives? Where do you draw the line?

There is a profound difference between accepting that some people struggle with various issues and handing them a bottle. There is a profound difference between supporting someone who is struggling and pretending that what they are doing is not sinful and self-destructive.

You are now convinced that homosexuality is a disease that can be cured (I think even the Church has lately refrained from making such radical statements), but most gay people consider this notion of yours ridiculous.

To the contrary, I said nothing of the kind. I agree with the Church's position: that while there may (as in might) be (and the science is still out) matters of genetic or environmental predisposition for homosexual attraction, it remains a behavior that can be controlled and altered.

if you are ever able to put yourself into their shoes, I believe you will understand my point of view.

I have. I've been in their shoes, both first-hand and because my closest friend and shipmate has lived with homosexual attractions for as long as he can remember.

[Pahoran]

Well, it was taught by the prophet as doctrine.

No, it was not.

If God never changes, you can say it is still LDS doctrine.

That's an interesting argument. Do you apply it to circumcision? But apart from that, it wasn't LDS doctrine to begin with.

Its in the Journal of Discourses (Jod) which say they are part of the Standard Works (SW) of the Church.

That's a standard anti-Mormon deception, relied upon exclusively and only by anti-Mormon deceivers.

The JoD are not, and never have been, counted as part of the Standard Works of the Church. The preface to one and only one of the volumes claims that it is "a standard work" in the ordinary sense. The LDS sense of "standard work" as meaning "a volume of canonical scripture" was not then in use. The equivocation on your part is clearly deliberate, and was made with intent do deceive.

It didn't work.

So, in that case, that is not only doctrine but SW- which are even more important to Mormons, these days. This is just one reason why folks say Mormons are blindly following their leaders- because they did.

You are raving.

They still do. Mormons are told they are Christians by their leaders without doing any research for themselves to see if that is true- again following their leaders blindly.

That is a blatant and inexcusable falsehood.

Members of the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints are Christians because we follow Jesus Christ, acknowledge him as Lord of our lives, and--unlike certain "cheap-grace" pseudoChristians--actually try to keep his commandments. By contrast, anti-Morgbots mindlessly repeat the mantra, taught to them by the deceitful rabble-rousers they follow, that "Mormons ain't Christian" without giving the matter any thought, thus following their uninspired leaders blindly.

An example would be (one of many, actually) Mormons are taught that the Bible is not translated correctly.

Are we really? I haven't heard that, myself. I haven't heard it from the pulpit or seen it in any curriculum materials.

Most Mormons believe this totally, without question (read as blindly). Yet not one Mormon, including every leader (prophet, apostle, etc), has ever shown, with proof, that the Bible has been changed. In fact, no one ever has and many anti-Christians throughout the last 2,000 years have tried and failed.

This is sheer nonsense. Your idolatry towards the Bible has blinded you to the truth about it. You have simply embarrassed yourself with this absurd outburst. As a point of fact it is false, and proof of its falsehood is abundant. I won't humiliate you by rubbing your nose in your own doo-doo, but I suggest you educate yourself in order to avoid such egregious blunders in the future. A useful starting point might be to Google "johannine comma" and see what you find.

Another one is Mormons believe the Bible.

That's because we do.

But the Bible says there is only one God and before Him there was no God formed nor will there be any after Him.

As Bible believers, and not Bible idolaters--good Christians do not practice idolatry--we are aware that hasty, superficial and slipshod readings are not the most effective way to recover the meaning of the Bible.

You should learn that too.

Yet, blindly, Mormons totally believe their leaders words that there are many (Trillions of) Gods.

Really? No leader has ever said that to me. The arrogance by which you presume to tell us(!) what we(!) believe is as hostile as it is dishonest.

Don't do this again.

Orson Pratt said there are more Gods than there are particles of matter.

Call for references on that statement, please. Just so you know, honest critics of the Church, if such there be, do not quote from The Seer. The leaders you follow blindly won't have told you this, but that work was repudiated by the First Presidency and the Twelve, and by Pratt himself. So your unreferenced statement had better not be from there.

He was one of the first 12 apostles of the LDS church- for those who don't know. Is there one God or more than one?

Well, is Jesus God or isn't he? If he is, then to whom does he pray so many times? Who is that Father person he prays to in John 17, a chapter that is completely incoherent if approached with creedal trinitarian assumptions?

Do you believe Mormonism or the Bible? You can't believe both.

That's false, of course. The fact is that we can and do believe both, and you have lied to us about ourselves. What an extraordinary level of arrogance that displays!

And apart from that, your claim is a textbook example of the fallacy of the false dilemma. IOW, even if it wasn't a blatant falsehood, it would still be illogical. It fails at every level.

The evidence proves Mormons are blindly following.

That's false. As is expected, given your track record.

The worst part is they just don't know they are because its the standard operating procedure (read as brain-washed) for the Mormon church. It starts immediately upon becoming a Mormon..

That is just the kind of bigoted poisoning of the well that you have taught us to expect from you.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I believe modern Mormons still follow blindly and I gave a couple of examples of that.

Then you believe falsly. I dont follow anybody blindly. Accept when im going to blow my self up.

[rocmonkey]

This doesn't say, in any way, that BY ordered the massacre. I issue a direct CFR that Brigham Young ordered the massacre. Provide it, or break the rules of the board; it's that simple.

If you knew anything about the Book of Mormon, or the history of the LDS Church, you'd know we believe it is generally the wicked who do the punishing; not the righteous. MMM was not condoned by BY or the Church.

This one's simple: How many "mass murders" were committed by members of the LDS Church?

Hey, I just quoted WW (an LDS prophet- later on) who heard and wrote down what the prophet said. How can that be taken 'any' other way, please tell? I think that is a reference. It was clear that BY had taken vengeance by his words and he was at the spot where the cross (that he tore down) had been placed. But he didn't do it, others (followers) did. Also, John D. lee said he was set up by BY to take the fall. Surely no one believes that one Mormon did all the murdering.

Oh, now its your turn to 'prove' references- how do you know the MMM was not condoned by the church? They "said so". That's enough for you? I just showed LDS leaders (JFS or Heber and BY) was wrong or lied. Plus, JS said men live on the moon, are dressed like Quakers and live to about 1,000 years old (Young Women's Journal) - that's another lie by another one of your leaders. That's at least two if not three that lie. So, you really gonna believe these people? These are some reasons why I didn't join the church.

[rocmonkey]

So... this is what your "research" entails? One journal entry that doesn't even make the claim that you think it does? Well, I for one am sold. Itâ??s no wonder your â??researchâ? led you away from the Church.

This is just one of many things that led me away from the church.

JS predicting Jesus' return in 1890 and then 1891 are others.

Men living on the moon is another-JS.

Men living on the sun-BY

Human sacrifice IS God's Law- JFS

and this is just a start.

[Zakuska]

JS predicting Jesus' return in 1890 and then 1891 are others.

False. (D&C:130:14-17)

17 I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.

He predicted that Christ would not come any sooner than 1890... and he didn't... thus he predicted correctly.

Unlike all the "Christians" of the time (such as the SDA, and the Protestants) running around saying that he would.

Men living on the moon is another-JS.

Apostle John not Joseph Smith (Rev 12:1)

Also a member who supposedly heard him say it when he (the member) was 4 years old. Not a very objective source.

Men living on the sun-BY

Again the Apostle John (Rev. 19: 17)

Human sacrifice IS God's Law- JFS

Christ died on a Cross... sure seems like Gods Law to me.

IMHO you fell for every Anti-Mormon ploy... hook line and sinker.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hey, I just quoted WW (an LDS prophet- later on) who heard and wrote down what the prophet said. How can that be taken 'any' other way, please tell? I think that is a reference. It was clear that BY had taken vengeance by his words and he was at the spot where the cross (that he tore down) had been placed. But he didn't do it, others (followers) did. Also, John D. lee said he was set up by BY to take the fall. Surely no one believes that one Mormon did all the murdering.

Alrighty. Although it is far from evidence BY ordered the massacre just keep pretending it is.

Oh, now its your turn to 'prove' references- how do you know the MMM was not condoned by the church?

You haven't cited any sufficient evidence.

They "said so". That's enough for you? I just showed LDS leaders (JFS or Heber and BY) was wrong or lied. Plus, JS said men live on the moon, are dressed like Quakers and live to about 1,000 years old (Young Women's Journal) - that's another lie by another one of your leaders. That's at least two if not three that lie. So, you really gonna believe these people? These are some reasons why I didn't join the church.

First, it can't be proven that JS ever said that, as it is a third hand account of a ten year old boys' recollection.

Second: Do prophets have to know everything about science in order to be prophets?

Third: Is there anything in the Bible that is incorrect from our current understanding of science? If so, does the Bible, then, lie?

[Pahoran]

Hey, I just quoted WW (an LDS prophet- later on) who heard and wrote down what the prophet said. How can that be taken 'any' other way, please tell? I think that is a reference. It was clear that BY had taken vengeance by his words and he was at the spot where the cross (that he tore down) had been placed. But he didn't do it, others (followers) did. Also, John D. lee said he was set up by BY to take the fall. Surely no one believes that one Mormon did all the murdering.

For your information--not that you show the slightest sign of wanting to know the truth, but just to set the record straight--there are a number of threads about the MMM in this forum right now. Nobody except the most triumphantly ignorant bigots actually believe that Brigham ordered it, and nobody except the most brazen liars accuse him of doing so.

I realise you don't know anything about the Bible, so of course we wouldn't expect you to recognise it, but in fact Brigham was partially quoting a Bible verse (Romans 12:19) in which the "I" is not Brigham, but the Lord.

Oh, now its your turn to 'prove' references- how do you know the MMM was not condoned by the church? They "said so".

The overwhelming weight of the documentary evidence proves it. Just so you know.

That's enough for you? I just showed LDS leaders (JFS or Heber and BY) was wrong or lied.

No. You did not.

Plus, JS said men live on the moon, are dressed like Quakers and live to about 1,000 years old (Young Women's Journal) - that's another lie by another one of your leaders.

No. It is not.

It is a late and unreliable rumour--first seen some fifty years after the supposed event--which honest people do not rely upon as evidence for anything.

That's at least two if not three that lie. So, you really gonna believe these people? These are some reasons why I didn't join the church.

Based upon your posting history, the more likely explanation is that you couldn't find enough statements you could call "lies" to satisfy you that you'd feel at home in the Church.

And you would be right.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LifeOnaPlate]

Human sacrifice IS God's Law- JFS

Uh...CFR?

Did any LDS Prophet or apostle ever speak truth? Just curious.

Bring out the shotgun!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is just one of many things that led me away from the church.

JS predicting Jesus' return in 1890 and then 1891 are others.

Men living on the moon is another-JS.

Men living on the sun-BY

Human sacrifice IS God's Law- JFS

and this is just a start.

Dood im willing to bet you havent research a thing. Somebody gave you an anitmormon pamphlet and you immediatly took hold of that. Why? It offers no truth about anything. JS didnt predict that Jesus would return in 1891. DO you want to look at those verses in context? We can get to the meat of each of those if you want. Clearly you have not gone to the souce on any thing.

This is just the start. HA. I laugh becuase it is flasehood that you cling to so blindly. Wow. I am amazed. You come in here and insist that LDS members are brainwashed and blindly obey prophets, then quote form som antimormoan web page and act as if you had studied this all out your self. That is the most damning thing I've ever heard. you should be ashamed of your self or at least honest.

[rocmonkey]

Were in this quote does it say BY is ruthless or he order the MMM? Im not seeing those words here. Oh well better through out the context.

The fact that another of God's chosen prophets wrote those words at that place is pretty clear on the meaning. And, the facts that its all recorded by a man of God's choosing and that 120 were murdered shows BY was ruthless.

Deny what you will but it only points to blindly following and believing without questioning or researching what you're told.

I at least do research on the church to know what it teaches. Mormons always attack when they can't defend something. Even though your own leaders 'asked' us to show you where you (Mormonism) are wrong and they would thank us, they said. Is an attack a thank you to Mormons? How strange indeed.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The fact that another of God's chosen prophets wrote those words at that place is pretty clear on the meaning. And, the facts that its all recorded by a man of God's choosing and that 120 were murdered shows BY was ruthless.

Deny what you will but it only points to blindly following and believing without questioning or researching what you're told.

I at least do research on the church to know what it teaches. Mormons always attack when they can't defend something. Even though your own leaders 'asked' us to show you where you (Mormonism) are wrong and they would thank us, they said. Is an attack a thank you to Mormons? How strange indeed.

You have a few CFR's waiting.

[Doctor Steuss]

The fact that another of God's chosen prophets wrote those words at that place is pretty clear on the meaning. And, the facts that its all recorded by a man of God's choosing and that 120 were murdered shows BY was ruthless.

Deny what you will but it only points to blindly following and believing without questioning or researching what you're told.

I at least do research on the church to know what it teaches. Mormons always attack when they can't defend something. Even though your own leaders 'asked' us to show you where you (Mormonism) are wrong and they would thank us, they said. Is an attack a thank you to Mormons? How strange indeed.

Oi vey. You have got to be one of my favorite posters now. At first, I thought you were just sad, but now I realize you're actually quite funny.

[Zakuska]

That's at least two if not three that lie. So, you really gonna believe these people? These are some reasons why I didn't join the church.

Why not?

We believe the Apostle Peter and he's a habitual Liar (3 times over)!

We believe Matthew and he's an IRS agent.

We believe the other Apostles who where Lawyers and Doctors.

We believe the Prophet Moses, who was convicted of Murder, as well as hiding evidence.

So tell us do you Believe these scoundrels or do you hold a Double Standard like the rest of the "Christian" world?

PS. You are baring false witness, Why should we believe you?

[rocmonkey]

Alrighty. Although it is far from evidence BY ordered the massacre just keep pretending it is.

You haven't cited any sufficient evidence.

First, it can't be proven that JS ever said that, as it is a third hand account of a ten year old boys' recollection.

Second: Do prophets have to know everything about science in order to be prophets?

Third: Is there anything in the Bible that is incorrect from our current understanding of science? If so, does the Bible, then, lie?

First- Its in the Young Women's Journal of the LDS church. Surely a 10 year old boy didn't write, print, edit then publish that LDS publication.

2- No. But when they speak of what is impossible to know except from God they do. Unless they're lying and that makes them a false prophet to say it.

3- Nothing. In fact it speaks of things we know of as solidly true today. A round earth, medicine from plants, veggies really are better for you, etc.

Unlike the Bom, the Bible cannot be shown to have ever changed, by anyone. In spite of the fact that the LDS leaders have always claimed it has been and LDS members blindly accept it as fact.

[rocmonkey]

You have a few CFR's waiting.

I'm typing as fast as I can and I will answer them all. Will it change you to know the truth, though?

[LifeOnaPlate]

3- Nothing. In fact it speaks of things we know of as solidly true today. A round earth, medicine from plants, veggies really are better for you, etc.

Unlike the Bom, the Bible cannot be shown to have ever changed, by anyone. In spite of the fact that the LDS leaders have always claimed it has been and LDS members blindly accept it as fact.

I hate to use this, but it's terribly true: LOL

Are you a science teacher? Veggies really are better for you? Nicely done.

The Bible was never changed, eh?

I wonder how in the devil the apostles knew English back then when the wrote their books.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The fact that another of God's chosen prophets wrote those words at that place is pretty clear on the meaning. And, the facts that its all recorded by a man of God's choosing and that 120 were murdered shows BY was ruthless.

Deny what you will but it only points to blindly following and believing without questioning or researching what you're told.

I at least do research on the church to know what it teaches. Mormons always attack when they can't defend something. Even though your own leaders 'asked' us to show you where you (Mormonism) are wrong and they would thank us, they said. Is an attack a thank you to Mormons? How strange indeed.

I only am attack your weakness. Perhaps i should not do this. I dont blindly follow anybody. And guilt by association will never hold up in a court of law. So just how is blindly following who here. I have attacked nothing but your inabuility to be honest with yourself. I am definding against your lies about MMM and pretty much everything here. You have yet to post one thing that can be attributed to a prophet or apsotle saying. You have taken things out of context more time than i have fingers and have read in to the text things that are not there. CFR CFR CFR. you havent provided anything worth anything here.