Universal Apostasy Or Not?

[Mark Beesley]

I have the idea that Bob will now feel satisfied in thinking that he has responded to everything we had to tell him and all the while, and even now, he still believes everything he believes.

Sorry, Bob.

Maybe someone else better than us can help you.

He would have to be amenable to help.

[Paul Ray]

I only know of one way to interpret God's Word: exegetically, using the principles of hermeneutics. There are no other optional ways to interpret scripture.

Do you acknowledge the fact that people have various interpretations of scripture that conflict with each other?

I ask God to tell me how to interpret scripture and then I believe what God tells me.

Is my way any different than your way of understanding the scriptures?

If so, why don't you agree with my way, and if not, why don't we agree about everything?

You and I don't even agree about the definition of apostasy, and apostates.

Who and/or what is it that could help us to be in total agreement?

[Mark Beesley]

Are you saying that you think non-LDS Churches have moved closer to the LDS church in whatever they were previously wrong about (though we have no idea what was wrong with Churches back then)?

Some non-LDS Christians have moved closer to LDS theology on various topics, such as the nature of God, what it means to be created in His image, infant baptism, temple worship, etc.

No Bible-based Christian Church will ever believe that Smith was a prophet, or that the BoM is actual history, or that your church is the only true church.

Lynn Ridenhour has a Christian Bible-based ministry and he believes Joseph Smith was a prophet. Oh, but you banned him from Concerned Christians, so I guess he doesn't officially exist . . .

Why? I will still never pray about Smith, the BoM or your church.

And we all know who it is who teaches a man that he must not pray. . .

I only know of one way to interpret God's Word: exegetically, using the principles of hermeneutics. There are no other optional ways to interpret scripture.

Then why do you consistently ignore those interpretive tools?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Why? I will still never pray about Smith, the BoM or your church.

Bob,

Are you afraid you might get an answer and you might have to change? At least you can admit you have never prayed about it.

And we all know who it is who teaches a man that he must not pray. . .

Aint that the truth.

[Bob Betts]

The burning in their hearts didn't tell them that Christ was true, or His preaching was true. There is no indication that their experience was under the same conditions as what LDS claim to receive such a burning. Also, I recently had a former LDS Bishop, who is now a high LDS priest, tell me he never got a burning in the bosom, and that it wasn't necessary. He said he felt peace, but not a burning.

Bob, this is an argument from silence. The scriputres tells us that the HG will come to us.

The argument from silence is from you, by you assuming that the burning in the bosom that the two disciples mentioned is the same thing that you LDS are talking about to know that your prophet, book and church are true. That's not what happened in the story.

The scriptures tell us that those who believe, receive the HG who does more than come upon them, but dwells in them. But, in the case of the two disciples, the Spirit had not yet been sent, as pentecost was still in their future, when the HG would be given.

It is not only conditional upon a prayer.

There is no mention of prayer in the Emmaus story, or anywhere else in the Bible, as the means to know truth. Trusting in Christ and receiving the HG is the means to knowing the truth. That's the biblical way. Any other way is the argument from silence.

Also you mentioned something about Christ not yet ascending to his throne, in regaurds to the men that he walked with on Emmaus road. I believe that is also an argument from silence. Please provide a refrence. Thanks

If you want the reference to the Emmaus story, it's in Luke 24. It was well after this story that Christ ascended into heaven, as he was on the earth for fourty days after his resurrection from the dead (Acts 1:3).

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus does tell Peter about His authority to bind and loose, but it never mentions marriage for eternity. In Matthew 18:15-20, Jesus said it again in the specific context of dealing with someone who is unrepentant of their sin, not in context of marriage. Why do you assume marriage is supposed to be for eternity from these passages?

Again it says "what so ever you bind" it doesnt say what so every you bind, except marriage. THis is called proof texting.

No, proof texting is the use of individual scripture texts to produce apparent support for a doctrinal position without adequate regard for the contexts of the individual texts which may indicate differences and nuances. I didn't proof text at all. I highlighted the scriptures your church proof texts for your belief that Peter had authority to bind or loose marriages, when no mention of marriage is given in either Matthew text. What you're doing is giving another argument from silence, since marriage is never mentioned in either text, or in context with either text. Both passages are silent on marriage, and there is no reason to assume marriage is implied. However, the one passage in Matt. 18 is definitive about binding or loosing sin. That's all we know about it, as that's all that's stated.

those words are not there Bob. THanks.

Exactly. Marriage is not in either text. Therefore, we don't automatically assume that marriage or anything else is implied. That would be proof texting AND an argument from silence.

Why do you assume it doesnt include marriage?

answered above.

But, there is no evidence in scripture that we remain married in heaven. Not that we won't be with our spouses. But, why in the capacity of man and wife. There's a reason why Christ delt with this very question in response to the Saducees, "Matt. 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

Lastly this scripture is specific to people who are dead and are being ressurected. If they arent yet married they niether marry nor are given in marriage. These terms are specific to the very act of marriage. If you are sealed with this authority that Peter was given than it is binding. It is to late for marriage with the authority that Peter was given at the ressurection. You will be as the angles of heaven. Im sure you will disagree wtih this but that is fine.

Yes, I do disagree, because you've somehow mixed Matt. 22:30 with Peter's authority to bind and loose in Matt. 16 and 18, of which neither text is ever tied to marriage in the first place. There's no connection in either Matt. 16 or 18 to marriage, and there's no connection between Christ's teaching on resurrection in Matt. 22, to Matt. 16 or 18.

Speaking of this authority that Peter had or has, were did it go?

Regarding marriage, no scripture ever says that he had such authority to bind or loose marriages. It didn't go anywhere, since it was never with Peter to begin with.

How does one get it?

No one gets the authority to bind or loose marriages. No one ever did.

It sound pretty nice to have.

Only if you're really into having authority. I'm not. I just want to do the will of the Father, no matter how menial.

Im sure Christ would want the world to have dont you think?

No. I know of no man on earth who would be like Peter, and would be able to handle the responsibility of binding and loosing sins. Men are mostly ego-centric and too self-centered to ever be worthy of such a responsibility. Anyway, I don't see anyone in this dispensation with Apostolic authority. I believe that authority died with the Apostles.

Do you Bob, claim to have this authority?

To bind or loose sins, as Peter could? Heck no.

Were then did you get it?

Didn't.

[Mark Beesley]

No one gets the authority to bind or loose marriages. No one ever did.

. . . . .

No. I know of no man on earth who would be like Peter, and would be able to handle the responsibility of binding and loosing sins. Men are mostly ego-centric and too self-centered to ever be worthy of such a responsibility. Anyway, I don't see anyone in this dispensation with Apostolic authority. I believe that authority died with the Apostles.

If the sealing power given to Peter was not the power seal families, as LDS theology teaches, what was it? Authority to seal sins? C'mon, nobody has that power if you believe in predestination, and election, like you do. What would be the point Bob? Your salvation was predetermined from the moment you were born, right? And you are one of the elect, right? And that is the case for everyone, right? We're either one of the elect or we aren't. And we can't do anything to change that predetermination. So, what was this power Peter was given? Just from a pragmatic point of view, exactly what authority do you think Peter received that made a whit of difference?

Oh, and please provide a biblical reference which says that the power included the power to bind or loose sins specifically, since Matthew wrote as much about the power being related to that as he did about marriage.

[T-Shirt]

The argument from silence is from you, by you assuming that the burning in the bosom that the two disciples mentioned is the same thing that you LDS are talking about to know that your prophet, book and church are true. That's not what happened in the story.

Their hearts burned while the Savior talked to them. What do you think that means, and what is the significance of it? Incidentally, I disagree that the LDS Church teaches that a burning in the bosom is the way to know if our prophet, book and Church are true. Can you demonstrate this scripturally?

The scriptures tell us that those who believe, receive the HG who does more than come upon them, but dwells in them. But, in the case of the two disciples, the Spirit had not yet been sent, as pentecost was still in their future, when the HG would be given.

Then how do you explain the case of John the Baptist, Elisebeth, Zacharias and Simeon, all of whom were filled with the Holy Ghost, long before Pentecost?

There is no mention of prayer in the Emmaus story, or anywhere else in the Bible, as the means to know truth. Trusting in Christ and receiving the HG is the means to knowing the truth. That's the biblical way. Any other way is the argument from silence.

How does the Holy Ghost reveal truth to us?

Regards,

T-Shirt

[Paul Ray]

How does the Holy Ghost reveal truth to us?

Regards,

T-Shirt

I predict that Bob will say something like:

by inspiring people to write the scriptures in the Bible for us to study

... while thinking that is the end of the story.

[consiglieri]

Any chance the much ignored and seldom responded to consiglieri can horn in on post number 1,000?

[Paul Ray]

Any chance the much ignored and seldom responded to consiglieri can horn in on post number 1,000?

You're welcome to it, as far as I am concerned.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

To bind or loose sins, as Peter could? Heck no.

Didn't.

Bob,

You are a funny man. You have admitted that it is an argument from silence reguarding marriage, one way or the other, it is true. You cannot argue your side anymore than I could argue my side, surlely you see this. Ill play it your way. The scriptures do not say anything about binding sin, were do you get this? I at least claim to have modern revelation claimed to be given to me by a prohpet of God. Yours on the other hand was given to you by whom? I thought no more scripture could be revealed.

Peter was given the authority to bind and loose things on this earth. If anything since it isnt clear it would be the power to bind and loose all things, thise would include marrage and sins (witch doesnt even make sense to me) but Ill give you the benfit of the doubt here. Why cant you accpet this. You dont even want to try to see eye to eye on anything. In case you wonder I tried in this very post. let me post it again just in case you missed it.

"If anything since it isnt clear it would be the power to bind and loose all things, thise would include marrage and sins (witch doesnt even make sense to me) but Ill give you the benfit of the doubt here."

I dedicate my 1600 post to Bob Betts. Thanks Bob.

[Mark Beesley]

Bob,

You are a funny man.

From Merriam-Webster for funny:

1 a: affording light mirth and laughter : amusing b: seeking or intended to amuse : facetious

2: differing from the ordinary in a suspicious, perplexing, quaint, or eccentric way : peculiar â??often used as a sentence modifier; <funny, things didn't turn out the way we planned

3: involving trickery or deception <told his prisoner not to try anything funny

Which way were you using funny?

[T-Shirt]

However, the one passage in Matt. 18 is definitive about binding or loosing sin. That's all we know about it, as that's all that's stated.

This seems a rather odd interpretation. In this same chapter, Peter asks Christ how often he should forgive men of their sins and Christ responds that, he is to always forgive others. He goes on to give a parable which indicates that there are great consequences for those who do not forgive. After all this, why would Peter then bind someone's sins, after he was specifically warned by Christ not to? And, why would Christ give him power to do something He specifically warned against? I think you have misunderstood.

My best,

T-Shirt

[Paul Ray]

This seems a rather odd interpretation. In this same chapter, Peter asks Christ how often he should forgive men of their sins and Christ responds that, he is to always forgive others. He goes on to give a parable which indicates that there are great consequences for those who do not forgive. After all this, why would Peter then bind someones sins, after he was specifically warned by Christ not to? I think you have misunderstood.

My best,

T-Shirt

I believe priesthood leaders "bind" sin upon sinners by enforcing consequences when the sinners are unwilling to repent, and sometimes even when sinners are willing to repent they must first face some consequences for some actions.

It's not charitable to forgive people when they are unwilling to repent.

That really doesn't help them, IMO.

[T-Shirt]

I believe priesthood leaders "bind" sin upon sinners by enforcing consequences when the sinners are unwilling to repent, and sometimes even when sinners are willing to repent they must first face some consequences for some actions.

It's not charitable to forgive people when they are unwilling to repent.

That really doesn't help them, IMO.

Paul, there is a difference between the Church giving forgiveness and individuals giving forgiveness. I think that this particular passage is referring to priesthood leaders excommunicating the unrepentant sinner. If this is what Bob is referring to, then I would agree that this is included in the "binding" and "loosing".

T-Shirt

[Bob Betts]

I didn't tell you what you believe. I told you what I've observed that LDS do, with regard to their view of Smith. My observation isn't obscured. Everything I've listed as evidence of worship of Smith, is true. You can deny that all those things don't amount to worship, and I will simply disagree. That doesn't mean that I'm telling you what you believe, in the slightest.

I have no problems admitting that I follow Joseph as one of God's prophets, Bob, even if I am admitting that fact to someone who thinks there is something wrong with that idea.

I believe you simply don't know that Joseph Smith was one of God's true prophets,

I know that the OT prophets were true prophets of God, and I never had to pray about a single one of them. They were confirmed to be true prophets by Christ and His Apostles, as they mention almost every one of them in the NT. I didn't have to pray about the Apostles, nor Christ, nor the Bible. Yet I know they're all true.

and your lack of knowledge concerning that fact may limit you from discovering the true nature of God and God's work.

What knowledge I have of Smith, is from his writings, his revelations and LDS writings about him. I've gone to the source. Yet, he doesn't strike me as a prophet, since his prophecies didn't come to pass (one of them by his own admission), and since he himself significantly changed the words of his own alleged revelations from God, between the BoC and the D&C. I've read those changes. I've read the changes between the 1830 and current BoM. They're most significant. I know none of these things matter to you. But, they, and a lot more things bother me. I don't accept what LDS explanations I've heard for these changes.

But, when you accuse me of not having knowledge of Smith, you falsely accuse me. You don't like my conclusions about him. But, that's different than accusing me of not knowing. I know a great deal more than you realize, having examined a whole lot more than you realize.

I suggest that you talk with God about everything...

There are certain things which simply don't require prayer. I know from God's word, what the test of a prophet is. Smith failed that test. I don't need to pray about that, because God's word is crystal clear. And, God never once said to pray about a prophet to know that he's true. Not once.

And, just to prove to you that you will agree with me that not everything needs to be prayed about, answer these questions: have you prayed about Warren Jeffs, or any of the couple-a-hundred other LDS prophets to know if they are true? Have you prayed to know if Benny Hinn is true? Oral Roberts? Mohammad? The Koran? The Pope? Ellen White? The Watchtower Society? Get my point? You wouldn't pray about any of these for the same reason I wouldn't pray about Smith, the BoM or your church. You already know the answers, without having to pray. I already know why I believe your prophets and scriptures and church aren't true. Praying wouldn't change a thing.

with enough faith to believe God will answer you, personally...

When I pray, I have complete faith, knowing that God will answer me. I just know not to waste His times with things that don't need to be prayed about, since His word is already clear about how to identify false prophets, teachers, apostles, etc.

instead of simply relying on your own ideas and what other people (other than God) have told you that you agree with.

You presume to know how I gather information and knowledge, and that I must be going about it the wrong way. You don't know me well enough to make such a presumption. The fact is, I've read about Joseph Smith from his own writings, and by reading what pro-LDS have written about him. I've gone to the source. My conclusion is the opposite of yours, because of my investigation of his writings. But, also from my investigation into your church, I know that a belief in Smith as a true prophet doesn't come by investigating his writings or revelations, but by praying about it to gain a feeling or experience. So, knowledge, from your LDS perspective isn't absolutely necessary. I've never met a convert to Mormonism who first examined his revelations, to know if they came to pass.

Your intellect and your understanding of God and the Bible, alone, will not help you to truly know God.

No, of course not. I agree with you. The Bible is clear that I must have the spirit of God dwelling in me to know God, and that I must have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Will you next tell me that I don't have the Spirit of Christ dwelling in me, or a relationship with Him, because I don't believe Smith, the BoM and your church to be true?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

From Merriam-Webster for funny:

1 a: affording light mirth and laughter : amusing b: seeking or intended to amuse : facetious

2: differing from the ordinary in a suspicious, perplexing, quaint, or eccentric way : peculiar â??often used as a sentence modifier; <funny, things didn't turn out the way we planned

3: involving trickery or deception <told his prisoner not to try anything funny

Which way were you using funny?

Lol, Quite honestly any would apply.

[Dale]

Bob if i worked through the issues that bothered me why can't you? I had some of your concerns to ponder. I have an copy of the 1833 Book of Commandments. Joseph Smith did not make the changes as a man Jesus had the changes made? Why don't you pick out one, or two variants that particularly bother you. Then start a post on it.

I have studied variants between various edition's of the Book of Mormon. The same ten or so tend to be popular with LDS critic's. John Tvedtnes has shown in a FAIR talk similar vaiants occur in Bible manuscripts. Plus we don't have the vanished originals, so we don't know that the Book of Revelations is faithful to the original. (Rev.22:18,19) If God trusted the scribes why give a warning of punishment to the scribes? God is no prohibited from having changes made only man without permission is.

The law and it's rule's have been abolished, but you judge him as a false prophet based on one false prophecy? Which one were you alluding to?

Of course i have the basic list of reputed false prophecies, and think critic's have not learned to read the statements correctly.

Zion's camp was one i was studying the other day. The document is very clear Zion wouldn't be redeemed by a mere bunch of armed men. But that power like Moses had would have to go with them. Plus they would have to follow the commandments perfectly as a people, and group of men or fail.

David Patten is another example of a reputed false prophecy. But he did not settle up his earthly business. He was told to settle up his business, but got involved in a battle of man anyway. How is that settling up his business?

Let's work on resolving your list so you can be free of these issues. Then maybe you can find the real Joseph Smith not the one you think he was.

[Bob Betts]

I only know of one way to interpret God's Word: exegetically, using the principles of hermeneutics. There are no other optional ways to interpret scripture.

Do you acknowledge the fact that people have various interpretations of scripture that conflict with each other?

Yes. Mostly because they don't know how to interpret scripture, thus the multiple conflicts.

I ask God to tell me how to interpret scripture and then I believe what God tells me.

Is my way any different than your way of understanding the scriptures?

Entirely different. If you don't know what "exegesis" and "hermeneutics" are, I recommmend you take the time to learn. It will radically change how you interpret scripture.

If so, why don't you agree with my way, and if not, why don't we agree about everything?

I don't agree with your way because it will rarely lead us to the same interpretation. When God spoke through the prophets, Christ and the Apostles, he had one thing in mind...one intention...one intended meaning. Every verse has an intended meaning, which God knows. He never intended for everyone to arrive at different meanings. One verse is not supposed to mean one thing to one person, and something different to another person. God said what He meant and meant what He said. The goal in exegesis is to find out what He meant.

You and I don't even agree about the definition of apostasy, and apostates.

Part of exegesis is to get the definitions of terms from the original languages of the Bible, so that we are on the same page with defined terms.

So, based on the Greek definition of grace, I automatically know that the LDS definition of grace is the opposite of the Greek definition. If you were to conform your thinking to the Greek definition of grace, it would entirely change your view of grace, and you would understand that the LDS definition is entirely wrong. It would change your entire perspective on the doctrine of grace, which has led a lot of LDS to quit the LDS church, after they learned what a difference there is.

Who and/or what is it that could help us to be in total agreement?

I don't know of a person or thing that could accomplish that. One of us would have to go through a complete change fo thinking. Romans 12:2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

[Bob Betts]

Bob: Why? I will still never pray about Smith, the BoM or your church.

Bob,

Are you afraid you might get an answer and you might have to change?

No. The reason I won't pray about it is because I want to do the will of my Father in heaven. And, there is not one teaching, nor biblical precedent for praying to know if a prophet is true, if a book is true or if a church is true. If you ever find a verse which does, let me know.

At least you can admit you have never prayed about it.

And, I admit that I never will pray about it. It is not the written will of my Father in heaven, to do so.

An LDS: And we all know who it is who teaches a man that he must not pray. . .

Aint that the truth.

But, I agree with Paul's admonition: 1 Thessalonians 5:17 "Pray without ceasing." So, I'm not telling anyone not to pray, at all. Pray all the time. But, as I said before, there are many things that don't need to be prayed for or about. It is nowhere written in my Father's Word, to pray to know if a prophet is true, if a book is true or if a church is true.

Frankly, I'm surprized that you, Mola Ram Suda Ram, would join in on this attempted smear of me, by another. I though we at least had a respectful relationship and dialogue going. I'm trying to focus in on discussions with those who will be respectful. Usually you are. But, once in a while, you turn on me. Are you no different than the disrespectful ones? What am I to take from this little attack on me, by you, suggesting that I teach people they must not pray? Do you see how unfair a statement that is against me? I hope you do.

[Zemah]

Any chance the much ignored and seldom responded to consiglieri can horn in on post number 1,000?

Only if you have something to say.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Frankly, I'm surprized that you, Mola Ram Suda Ram, would join in on this attempted smear of me, by another. I though we at least had a respectful relationship and dialogue going. I'm trying to focus in on discussions with those who will be respectful. Usually you are. But, once in a while, you turn on me. Are you no different than the disrespectful ones? What am I to take from this little attack on me, by you, suggesting that I teach people they must not pray? Do you see how unfair a statement that is against me? I hope you do.

Bob,

If you were turly offended I am sorry, I was not intending to do so. I was just stressed at work and should have been more careful. I was trying to lighten what was going on in side my head. I know that doesnt make much sence, so I am sorry. Ill try harder tomarrow. BTW did you see that I dedicated my 1600 post to you? Lol.

Note: sometimes I get a little sarcastic. Perhaps I went to far.

[Dale]

Bob-Jeremiah added to a revelation. (Jer.36:4,23,32) Since the original was burned we don't know it was the same book. We can't know that no significant variants existed between the original, and the restored version.

With the Toronto Prophecy (1829) I think Joseph Smith was decieved in telling them to go to Canada to sell rights to the copyrite of the Book of Mormon. But it was only for Canada full ownership of the copywrite would have been kept in the U.S. After the trip failed Jesus told Joseph Smith something like "Some revelations are of men, others of God, and others of the Devil." Not the exact quote from David Whitmer, but close enough for my purposes.

In 1 Kings 13:11-32 we have an example of a prophet who spoke falsely In God's name on one occasion. But in vs.21 delivers a true revelation. Plus verse has the prophet lying about an angel speaking unto him telling him to deliver a false message. The Deut. 18:22 test would certainly invalidate the true revelation in vs. 21. But if the Lord ignored the scripture then he could do the same for Joseph Smith?

Plus as i think the law and it's rule's have been abolished. So judging Joseph Smith by the law alone without trusting Jesus is a mistake. If he spoke to Joseph Smith then Jesus said this one false prophecy wasn't enough to classify Joseph smith as a false prophet. Since Jesus is higher in authority than Deut. 18:22 critic's of Joseph Smith do not prove what they seek to with the verse.

To me i have been more careful with the word of God than the many critic's of Joseph Smith who use this prophecy against him. So i had no problem in trusting my testimony of Joseph Smith.

A book entitled How Firm a Foundation by Michael T. Griffith has an excellent disussion on James 1:5. Ch. 6 section is entitled James 1:5-The First Vision and prayer: Should we Pray to Know if the Church is True? (pages 47-52) I heard the argument it's only talking about gaining wisdom before. That it was an abuse it to say we should pray about religious truth. It was nice to see an LDS author respond well to the argument.

But i would not encourage you to pray about my beliefs. I think i might save that invitation for you if i ever felt you felt it was ever ok to pray about it. If you felt my beliefs held up to the Barean test then I know you would consider prayer. (Acts 17:11) Subjective feeling's as long as they are supported by the word of God can be trusted.

Have you ever heard of a man named Wally Tope? He was an Evangelical minister who got injured in the Los Angelas riots some years ago. He got injured by these two punks, and went into a coma for about 19 months before he died. Sad story. But he had this witnessing to Mormons manual. On The Frontlines Witnessing to Mormon was I think the title. The book is out of print now. I can't find a used copy on the internet.

But in it i recall him expressing his thoughts that praying about the Book of Mormon was like praying about robbing a bank. I read the book while Dr. Martin was still alive, so my memory of his illustration might be bad. I only remember the snippet of his illustration. And this is an honest Evangelical concern about praying about the book. To pray about the book is to them pray about something wrong with God. So any answer you could get you would honestly blame on Satan, man, or a combination of the two anyway.

I challenge you to instead resolve your doubts and questions about Mormonism. When you doubt your doubts and questions then i would then be tempted to challenge you to pray.

[freakin a man]

Ok, I will let someone else be the first to post 1000.

[Mark Beesley]

Frankly, I'm surprized that you, Mola Ram Suda Ram, would join in on this attempted smear of me, by another. I thought we at least had a respectful relationship and dialogue going. I'm trying to focus in on discussions with those who will be respectful. Usually you are. But, once in a while, you turn on me. Are you no different than the disrespectful ones? What am I to take from this little attack on me, by you, suggesting that I teach people they must not pray? Do you see how unfair a statement that is against me? I hope you do.

I'm not at all surprised that your arrogance, Bob, wears on folks' patience. I know it wore on mine when I posted at Concerned Christians. I still recall our exchange over the copyright act when you claimed you had a copy of it, but when I posted the actual act, and not just the insignificant amendment that you were hanging your argument on, and blew your argument out of the water, you promptly told me you weren't gonna dance for me any more and started with the banning threats. You're doing the same thing here. People are giving you complete information, but your arrogance blocks you from seeing the whole picture, and since you can't threaten to ban people here, you whine about being smeared.

Bob, I don't believe I said you you teach people not to pray. I said we know who it is who teaches people not to pray. Here's the exact quote:

And we all know who it is who teaches a man that he must not pray. . .

That would be Satan, Lucifer, the ole Devil.

And now, my beloved brethren, I perceive that ye ponder still in your hearts; and it grieveth me that I must speak concerning this thing. For if ye would hearken unto the Spirit which teacheth a man to pray ye would know that ye must pray; for the devil spirit teacheth not a man to pray, but teacheth him that he must not pray.

2 Nephi 32:8

He has taught you not to pray about the Book of Mormon, not to pray about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not to pray about Joseph Smith. That is teaching people not to pray, and you have hearkened unto him.

So, tell us Bob, since you claim that you don't pray about these things because the Bible does not specifically tell you to pray about such things, what specifically does the Bible tell you to pray about? Chapter and verse please.

Note: Someone else may have to pose the question to Bob since Bob won't respond to me directly, only if someone else quotes me.