As a "critic", what is your purpose or motivation?

[Mars]

Surely IRR's "integrity" would consider that recommendation.

[Rob Bowman]

Mars,

I used the quotation marks to indicate merely that this was the LDS preferred term, not to connote irony. However, lest anyone misinterpret the quotation marks as CV75 did, I will remove them.

I assume your use of quotation marks was intentional as far as indicating irony or better yet sarcasm with regard to IRR's integrity. It's too bad, but I realize that some Mormons will continue to question our intentions no matter what we do, short of disbanding altogether.

Surely IRR's "integrity" would consider that recommendation.

[Mars]

I assume your use of quotation marks was intentional as far as indicating irony or better yet sarcasm with regard to IRR's integrity. It's too bad, but I realize that some Mormons will continue to question our intentions no matter what we do, short of disbanding altogether.

It was a sarcastic comment intended to put the shoe on the other foot. I have no opinion of IRRs intentions.

I understood the quote in the exact same way as CV75, for the record.

[cdowis]

The LDS who have gone to the temple have personally made a solemn oath and covenant with God that they will not reveal the temple content. Certain individuals, for their own reasons, have decided to violate that oath. We realize that exposing the content is offensive to members of the LDS church, and we are using the assistance of those oath breakers, but we really don't care.

We are saved by confessing Christ by our mouth, Hallelujah! We are forever saved and anything we do will be washed away by the blood of Christ. We are saved for all eternity and the Mormons are going to hell.

So, the reader will understand that we really and truly don't care what the Mormons think about our exposing their "sacred" rites to the ridicule of the public.

Praise be to the Lamb as we carry on His work in our ministry!

[mfbukowski]

The Bible is revelation from God (e.g., Rom. 16:26). Therefore, in being dependent on the Bible, I am dependent on revelation.

Here we go again.

How do you know the Bible is a revelation from God- because it testifies of itself?

[mfbukowski]

Deleted.

I was wrong.

[mfbukowski]

This, folks, is why:

We can choose our actions, but not the consequences.

[cdowis]

How do you know the Bible is a revelation from God- because it testifies of itself?

Try this:

Saul knew that the Bible was revelation, and thus he was **called by the Bible** to teach the truth. As a learned scholar, he could cite many scriptures to prove that the Christians were heretics. Called by the Bible, he had a duty to expose their false teachings.

"I have the holy scriptures and don't need those heretic prophets."

[mfbukowski]

The LDS who have gone to the temple have personally made a solemn oath and covenant with God that they will not reveal the temple content. Certain individuals, for their own reasons, have decided to violate that oath. We realize that exposing the content is offensive to members of the LDS church, and we are using the assistance of those oath breakers, but we really don't care.

We are saved by confessing Christ by our mouth, Hallelujah! We are forever saved and anything we do will be washed away by the blood of Christ. We are saved for all eternity and the Mormons are going to hell.

So, the reader will understand that we really and truly don't care what the Mormons think about our exposing their "sacred" rites to the ridicule of the public.

Praise be to the Lamb as we carry on His work in our ministry!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRx5V8Umt0A

..... and then there were two....!

[cdowis]

This "note to our readers" is a cynical attempt to pretend to be sensitive.

You're not fooling anybody.

[mfbukowski]

This "note to our readers" is a cynical attempt to pretend to be sensitive.

You're not fooling anybody.

Luke 23:34

34Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

For Rob's sake, I really do hope he is as ignorant of the truth as he appears.

[Nathair/|\]

Luke 23:34

For Rob's sake, I really do hope he is as ignorant of the truth as he appears.

I started another thread to discuss why we don't talk about the temple.

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You wrote:

This "note to our readers" is a cynical attempt to pretend to be sensitive.

You're not fooling anybody.

And you are pretending to be offended by our supposed insensitivity, and not fooling anyone either.

[Questing Beast]

The LDS who have gone to the temple have personally made a solemn oath and covenant with God that they will not reveal the temple content. Certain individuals, for their own reasons, have decided to violate that oath. We realize that exposing the content is offensive to members of the LDS church, and we are using the assistance of those oath breakers, but we really don't care.

We are saved by confessing Christ by our mouth, Hallelujah! We are forever saved and anything we do will be washed away by the blood of Christ. We are saved for all eternity and the Mormons are going to hell.

So, the reader will understand that we really and truly don't care what the Mormons think about our exposing their "sacred" rites to the ridicule of the public.

Praise be to the Lamb as we carry on His work in our ministry!

What is this about?...

[Rob Bowman]

QB,

Charles is mocking me.

What is this about?...

[Mars]

Maybe it's just time to let this thread die.

[Vance]

The LDS who have gone to the temple have personally made a solemn oath and covenant with God that they will not reveal the temple content. Certain individuals, for their own reasons, have decided to violate that oath. We realize that exposing the content is offensive to members of the LDS church, and we are using the assistance of those oath breakers, but we really don't care.

We are saved by confessing Christ by our mouth, Hallelujah! We are forever saved and anything we do will be washed away by the blood of Christ. We are saved for all eternity and the Mormons are going to hell.

So, the reader will understand that we really and truly don't care what the Mormons think about our exposing their "sacred" rites to the ridicule of the public.

Praise be to the Lamb as we carry on His work in our ministry!

I believe that is a more accurate statement than the one provided.

[Vance]

Here we go again.

How do you know the Bible is a revelation from God- because it testifies of itself?

He never seems to be able to answer this question.

[mfbukowski]

He never seems to be able to answer this question.

I think it is a central problem with sola scriptura- the Bible testifying of itself, obviously creates a circular argument.

You can have all the reasons you like, historically or whatever, but reason can never tell you it came from God.

Only one thing can do that- and that is revelation from God himself.

[Mudcat]

Maybe it's just time to let this thread die.

I agree. If for no better reason than to make room for the sequel thread.

As a "critic", what is your purpose or motivation? II

Rumor has it, they will be bringing back most of the cast from

As a "critic", what is your purpose or motivation?

Though, I have heard they are making a few cast changes.

In example, Mudcat will not be played by yours truly, instead Walt Disney will play the role.. as soon as they thaw him out.

Also, the Mars role will likely be played by Liam Neeson.

I think their is some discussion over the Vance character. Depending on how they money falls, Burt Reynolds, Ice Cube or Clint Eastwood will assume the role.

Morgan Freeman will be stepping in for the role of Bukowski, Questing Beast's role.. also on the bubble for cash, will be played by either Will Ferrell or Gary Coleman IIRC.

Bowman will be played by Bruce Willis and cdowis' role was a shoe in for Brad Pitt.

I think the only major plot change is that all the characters are armed and placed in a post apocalyptic world.

Just in case things get dicey, I do think they have left the door open for Robert Deniro to step in as the Nemesis/Moderator role.

[mfbukowski]

I agree. If for no better reason than to make room for the sequel thread.

As a "critic", what is your purpose or motivation? II

Rumor has it, they will be bringing back most of the cast from

As a "critic", what is your purpose or motivation?

Though, I have heard they are making a few cast changes.

In example, Mudcat will not be played by yours truly, instead Walt Disney will play the role.. as soon as they thaw him out.

Also, the Mars role will likely be played by Liam Neeson.

I think their is some discussion over the Vance character. Depending on how they money falls, Burt Reynolds, Ice Cube or Clint Eastwood will assume the role.

Morgan Freeman will be stepping in for the role of Bukowski, Questing Beast's role.. also on the bubble for cash, will be played by either Will Ferrell or Gary Coleman IIRC.

Bowman will be played by Bruce Willis and cdowis' role was a shoe in for Brad Pitt.

I think the only major plot change is that all the characters are armed and placed in a post apocalyptic world.

Just in case things get dicey, I do think they have left the door open for Robert Deniro to step in as the Nemesis/Moderator role.

[bookofmormontruth]

I agree. If for no better reason than to make room for the sequel thread.

As a "critic", what is your purpose or motivation? II

Rumor has it, they will be bringing back most of the cast from

As a "critic", what is your purpose or motivation?

Though, I have heard they are making a few cast changes.

In example, Mudcat will not be played by yours truly, instead Walt Disney will play the role.. as soon as they thaw him out.

Also, the Mars role will likely be played by Liam Neeson.

I think their is some discussion over the Vance character. Depending on how they money falls, Burt Reynolds, Ice Cube or Clint Eastwood will assume the role.

Morgan Freeman will be stepping in for the role of Bukowski, Questing Beast's role.. also on the bubble for cash, will be played by either Will Ferrell or Gary Coleman IIRC.

Bowman will be played by Bruce Willis and cdowis' role was a shoe in for Brad Pitt.

I think the only major plot change is that all the characters are armed and placed in a post apocalyptic world.

Just in case things get dicey, I do think they have left the door open for Robert Deniro to step in as the Nemesis/Moderator role.

good stuff!

I designate myself as George Lucas and plan to make a new topic that has more "controversy" and more of a Star Wars theme.

I would like to cast more female roles though - I don't recall any females posting on this thread. Any princess Leias (Carrie Fisher) out there?

[Rob Bowman]

I know that few of you will acknowledge the effort as sincere, but for those who want to know, the statement I proposed making with regard to the temple ceremony is now on the appropriate webpage of our site. Forum rules, of course, prohibit me from providing a link.

[Rob Bowman]

To all LDS participating in this thread: A week or so ago, I posted a question here asking if you all agree with Mr. Bukowski's claims in a particular post. Only Vance replied; he said he did agree with him, but apparently Vance did not notice the problem. So I will now point out the problem. Here is what Mr. Bukowski said:

And what you DON'T understand is that a belief in Christ is not a pre-requisite for the Moroni experience, and it doesn’t say that it is:

“And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ASK GOD, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, he will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost.”

“All” it says is to ASK IN THE NAME OF CHRIST- it says nothing about believing in Christ.

I had to rub my eyes and re-read this quotation a couple of times. Then, dumbstruck at the thought that I might have misremembered Moroni 10:4-5, I grabbed my quad and looked it up. Not satisfied to trust my eyes, I decided to cut and paste the text from the official LDS website edition of the Book of Mormon. This is what it says:

“And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.” (Moroni 10:4-5, emphasis added)

It appears that Mr. Bukowski deliberately misrepresented the Book of Mormon. I don't know how an obviously intelligent Mormon could possibly misquote Moroni 10:4-5 (one of the most often quoted texts in the Book of Mormon) and so blatantly misrepresent what it says without knowing that he was doing so.

I am also shocked that no Mormon set Mr. Bukowski straight, not even after I drew attention to the post and asked if anyone had an opinion regarding his statement.

Before you jump to Mr. Bukowski’s defense, imagine if I or any non-Mormon had misrepresented a text of the Book of Mormon in this blatant a fashion. Imagine if we had denied that Moroni 10:4-5 taught the necessity of faith in Christ. Then ask yourself how a Mormon, who obviously should know this text ten times better than a non-Mormon, can be reasonably given a pass for explicitly denying what the text says and misquoting it to support his false statement.

[Vance]

To all LDS participating in this thread: A week or so ago, I posted a question here asking if you all agree with Mr. Bukowski's claims in a particular post. Only Vance replied; he said he did agree with him, but apparently Vance did not notice the problem. So I will now point out the problem. Here is what Mr. Bukowski said:

I had to rub my eyes and re-read this quotation a couple of times. Then, dumbstruck at the thought that I might have misremembered Moroni 10:4-5, I grabbed my quad and looked it up. Not satisfied to trust my eyes, I decided to cut and paste the text from the official LDS website edition of the Book of Mormon. This is what it says:

It appears that Mr. Bukowski deliberately misrepresented the Book of Mormon.

Nah, most likely he simply misremembered the verse and trusted his memory when he should not have.

This, of course, doesn't negate his point. Saul didn't "believe in Christ" nor did he have "faith in Christ" when he received his revelation of the truth.

Saying "having faith in Christ" as part of a promise to know the truth isn't the same as saying that "having faith in Christ" is a requirement to know the truth.

But then, you really weren't interested in his point, but only in seeing a potential "gotcha".

I don't know how an obviously intelligent Mormon could possibly misquote Moroni 10:4-5 (one of the most often quoted texts in the Book of Mormon) . . .

You don't?

I do. He was quoting from memory and got it wrong.

I am also shocked that no Mormon set Mr. Bukowski straight, not even after I drew attention to the post and asked if anyone had an opinion regarding his statement.

Why would we set him straight when his point was accurate?

In addition to Saul, I thought of this scriptural event when I responded to your question.

Alma 22:15 And it came to pass that after Aaron had expounded these things unto him, the king said: What shall I do that I may have this eternal life of which thou hast spoken? Yea, what shall I do that I may be born of God, having this wicked spirit rooted out of my breast, and receive his Spirit, that I may be filled with joy, that I may not be cast off at the last day? Behold, said he, I will give up all that I possess, yea, I will forsake my kingdom, that I may receive this great joy.

16 But Aaron said unto him: If thou desirest this thing, if thou wilt bow down before God, yea, if thou wilt repent of all thy sins, and will bow down before God, and call on his name in faith, believing that ye shall receive, then shalt thou receive the hope which thou desirest.

17 And it came to pass that when Aaron had said these words, the king did bow down before the Lord, upon his knees; yea, even he did prostrate himself upon the earth, and cried mightily, saying:

18 O God, Aaron hath told me that there is a God; and if there is a God, and if thou art God, wilt thou make thyself known unto me, and I will give away all my sins to know thee, and that I may be raised from the dead, and be saved at the last day. And now when the king had said these words, he was struck as if he were dead.

Notice that the king was an unbeliever, yet his prayer was answered.

MFB's point stands.

Before you jump to Mr. Bukowski’s defense, imagine if I or any non-Mormon had misrepresented a text of the Book of Mormon in this blatant a fashion.

The difference is his point was CORRECT, yours, not so much.

Imagine if we had denied that Moroni 10:4-5 taught the necessity of faith in Christ.

In what regard? Finding truth? or finding salvation?

Then ask yourself how a Mormon, who obviously should know this text ten times better than a non-Mormon, can be reasonably given a pass for explicitly denying what the text says and misquoting it to support his false statement.

Except, his point wasn't false. Unlike yours.