Joseph Smith claimed to be a heretic.

[USU78]

In response to USU78

Quoting Forrest Gump in a fashion

I would have thought the wit and wisdom of a 40 +/- IQ floater through life would be beneath the notice of somebody so very well read and trained in the arts of rhetoric.

Or maybe not.

[Pahoran]

To inform you of my attitude it is this: one of teaching and learning, one of discussing and casting down arguments that exalt themselves above Christ. I speak what I need to in the situation to the best of my ability to listen for what the Father is saying. Like Paul who says that he becomes all things to all men. Sometimes what the Lord has to say is comfort and sometimes it is rebuke. If you want me not to teach, I caution you not to hold your breath. If you can't be taught then don't engage. One of my main purposes here is to learn. I learn what I was sent here to learn. I have already learned a great deal and will continue.

That's right, Benny; it's all about you.

This forum was really created for no other reason than to provide you with a pulpit and a bullhorn, so that you, from the depths of your oh-so-plentiful humility, could tell us(!) what our(!) doctrine is and means.

Oh, just BTW: found out about British spelling yet? Or must I labour with you some more?

The tone you believe you hear may not have it's origin in me. It may be what you expect my tone to be from your past experience with those who you compare to me.

Alternatively, it might just be what originates from you.

I suspect that it is.

Back to the topic: Joseph Smith never once "claimed to be a heretic." That assertion is utterly false.

Joseph claimed to do a work which some censorious, insecure people then took it upon their worthless selves to label as "heresy."

Perhaps you might understand the difference if I show you a simple analogy.

I had a friend once who worked for an abbatoir.

There are some extremist idiots who think that "meat is murder."

So I tell one of them, "Fred told me he works for an abbatoir."

Said idiot then goes about saying, "Fred claimed to be a murderer."

The idiot, of course, thinks he can justify it by appeal to his idiotic ideology. But the fact remains that he would not only be an idiot; he'd be a shameless, barefaced liar as well.

And when he denies being a liar, he is merely demonstrating that he has thoroughly cauterized his conscience.

Has the penny finally dropped?

Regards,

Pahoran

[BenjaminL.Toms]

You seriously give a lecture on humility and then spout this?

Yep. I was accused of an attitude and so the honest thing to do to keep things clear is to just state who and how I am. So there is no confusion. You have the word right from my mouth about what I am thinking. If you posses a false humility, then everything that does not measure up to the standard of your false humility will be deemed by you as arrogant; whether it actually be arrogance or if it possibly be real humility, both will be the same to you.

The subject is not however, my humility or yours. I am in the process of responding to the three serious posts above. I will probably have to wait until tomorrow to post.

[BenjaminL.Toms]

That's right, Benny; it's all about you.

(Accuser.)

This forum was really created for no other reason than to provide you with a pulpit and a bullhorn, so that you, from the depths of your oh-so-plentiful humility, could tell us(!) what our(!) doctrine is and means.

(Sarcasm is the response of a heart full of hate. Be careful they may see this and ban you from this thread. It has already happened once)

Oh, just BTW: found out about British spelling yet? Or must I labour with you some more?

Thank you for correcting me! I guess that is kind of like spelling color = colour. That makes total sense. It didn't indicate a lack of intelligence or a rush to respond and therefore hate. However, the hate still shows itself in many other ways. But I admit I was wrong about that.

Alternatively, it might just be what originates from you.

I suspect that it is.

How irrelevant. You might as well say I know you are but what am I? I was trying to softly tell you that the hateful accusations you make of me do not convict me or resonate with me. You are colouring my post with a tone that fits you... end of story. I don't care what you suspect. You who seems so offended by me telling you what you believe when I am just stating Mormon doctrine should not be telling me what my tone is, unless you don't mind being a hypocrite.

Back to the topic:

NO.

Would you drink a glass of orange juice with feces in it?

[RubyHunter]

I'm finding that this thread is quickly degenerating in to name calling, and quiet pot shots.

As a mere observer, I would reccomend that we return to some semblance of being "on topic". Any topic will do of course.

[Pahoran]

You are welcome and I will stand by what I said. I know when the BoM was allegedly written. It says so in the fourth verse of the first book; roughly 600 B.C.

That is actually one of the things that proves it is a false religion and not the Word of God. But that is another topic.

Indeed? You subsequently posted:

What you really mean is that you want to bring up the topic anyway even though I don't but pass the blame to me so you look innocent as if you are just going along with me.

No thanks, You will just have to wait for when I post that topic.

So you put that out there as a throwaway line, and then when questioned about it, get all pious about keeping on topic.

Right.

If you don't want to derail your own threads, drop the anti-Mormon scattergun. You introduced the derail; you need to deal with it.

I will answer your question though and at least not leave you completely dry.

Zedekiah had a first year.

I am not sure what the "it" is that does not correspond to roughly 600 B.C. So I will have to say that it doesn't sound like that is my point.

Zedekiah was king of Judah.

All of which is true, and none of which has any evidentiary value at all regarding the Book of Mormon's truth claims.

And now that that derail is finished with, you can go back to trying to demonstrate your vast superiority. Because of how much luuurve you have. Or something.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

NO.

Would you drink a glass of orange juice with feces in it?

No, I wouldn't.

I would, however, like to report you to the mods for that rather outrageous remark.

Which I have done.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LifeOnaPlate]

Would you drink a glass of orange juice with feces in it?

Chances are we all already have.

[USU78]

I'm finding that this thread is quickly degenerating in to name calling, and quiet pot shots.

As a mere observer, I would reccomend that we return to some semblance of being "on topic". Any topic will do of course.

What topic would RH like to engage?

The OP has been demonstrated to be not only incorrect but absurd, though the OP's creator refused to accept his ignorance's cure at the hands of the other participants.

So . . . further discussion thereon is pretty well useless . . . if the OP wants to participate, that is.

SO . . . I repeat the question . . . what topic would RH like to engage?

[ERayR]

Yep. I was accused of an attitude and so the honest thing to do to keep things clear is to just state who and how I am. So there is no confusion. You have the word right from my mouth about what I am thinking. If you posses a false humility, then everything that does not measure up to the standard of your false humility will be deemed by you as arrogant; whether it actually be arrogance or if it possibly be real humility, both will be the same to you.

The subject is not however, my humility or yours. I am in the process of responding to the three serious posts above. I will probably have to wait until tomorrow to post.

Oh please o holy one tell us who you really are that perhaps we may worship you in accordance with your holy station. (sounds of retching) I have offered to you a chance to seriously discuss theological points and you brush it aside as if I were barely within your notice. So it seems that in the face of omnipotence I must bow out.

Mr. Toms has been banned from the board.

[hagoth7]

I'm finding that this thread is quickly degenerating....

As a mere observer, I would reccomend that we return to some semblance of being "on topic". Any topic will do of course.

Agreed.

Mr. Toms has been banned from the board.

Argh.

[RubyHunter]

What topic would RH like to engage?

....

SO . . . I repeat the question . . . what topic would RH like to engage?

Actually, I was trying to point BLT back to the discussion at hand.

But, I appreciate your willingness to play along. Part of why I've always liked you Pahoran.

Anyways, I figured out which topic I liked, and started a thread on it elsewhere.

Thank you though.

[Nathair/|\]

Oh please o holy one tell us who you really are that perhaps we may worship you in accordance with your holy station. (sounds of retching) I have offered to you a chance to seriously discuss theological points and you brush it aside as if I were barely within your notice. So it seems that in the face of omnipotence I must bow out.

Mr. Toms has been banned from the board.

Too bad, he was entertaining in the same way as Thews.

[Vance]

I had a friend once . . .

Me too.

I miss him.

[LeSellers]

Too bad, he was entertaining in the same way as Thews.

And one wonders ...

Who has an unused sock, preferably white?

Lehi

[Zakuska]

And one wonders ...

Who has an unused sock, preferably white?

Lehi

I DO!

[Pahoran]

Mr. Toms has been banned from the board.

That's a shame. I had reported him with the view that he might possibly be carded, not sent off.

Nevertheless, the umpire's decision is in.

Regards,

Pahoran