Liar, Liar Pants On Fire

[stemelbow]

I believe ... for other reason ... that a mormon/Mormons were behind the attempt. I simply pointed out that Taylor's clever deflection is consistent with that preexisting belief.

You are welcome to believe what you wish. But I suspect if I asked what you believed about this matter, you would deflect by saying "I don't know who killed Boggs."

i don't know why it matters what I believe. I don't even see why it matters what you believe either. What remains true, though, what you put in your post is a very clever way to spin the information to suit your admittedly preconceived notions, it seems. I'm not sure that's helpful in assessing what we know of the events.

[frankenstein]

If one dares to disagree with Kevin, it's never a matter of if. It's only a question of when. You will be unmasked!

the very same can be said and shown of "lds defenders" on this board, if one dare disagree on a given situation, the person who disagrees with the "lds defender" is forth with labeled an anti-mormon or a confederate of anti-mormons.

[Daniel Peterson]

I think that the term "anti-Mormon" can be overused. But people who fight against Mormon claims or substantially oppose the Church and its doctrines are, by any reasonable definition of the term, anti-Mormons.

I'm not sure, though, that everybody who disagrees with Kevin is actually a liar, a moron, an idiot, a hypocrite, and/or an incompetent.

But, of course, I'm by definition a liar, moron, idiot, hypocrite, and incompetent, so what on earth would I know?

[stemelbow]

the very same can be said and shown of "lds defenders" on this board, if one dare disagree on a given situation, the person who disagrees with the "lds defender" is forth with labeled an anti-mormon or a confederate of anti-mormons.

I have yet to see myself being labled an anti-mormon and I've found myself disagreeing with some defenders here, and I've even focalized it a few times. I daresay this characterization is untrue overall. I wouldn't put it past some LDS to paint it as you describe, but everyone here? Nah...I call your bluff.

kevin? nah....until today we've been on decent terms. He's wrote down kind words about me a time or two saying I'm a nice buy, even reasonable sometimes. What a sweetheart he can be, sometimes.

[Zakuska]

Oh MAN! Taylor completely mopped the floor with these Guys?!

Check this out...

They have not even got a clumsy counterfeit. How will they stand the test? "He that abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God." I will not, however, call them impostors, that I shall leave, and I will go on to examine their doctrines more in detail. First, I will commence with Mr. Cleeve. He professes to be a Methodist minister. I am somewhat acquainted with their doctrines. Their ministers are not all ordained as Mr. Cleeve is; they have their class leaders, local preachers, exhorters; and itinerant preachers, made just at random, according to convenience. But I Will hear take Mr. Cleeve and Mr. Cater and compare their doctrines. Mr. Cleeve believes in sprinkling; Mr. Cater in immersion; neither of them believing in baptism as St. Peter did for remission of sins. (Interruption). But the Methodists have arranged the matter more conveniently, for according to the discipline of the Methodist episcopal church in America, they have three different modes of baptism, -- they will baptize either by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion This is the doctrine of the Episcopal Methodists in America; so that after teaching a person, what they call the plan of salvation, they do not know as teachers how to baptize, but must apply to the person whom they are teaching. Thus Mr. Cleeve would ---

Mr. Cleeve. -- I am not a Methodist, sir.

Elder Taylor. -- I certainly understood you were a Wesleyan Methodist.

Mr. Cleeve. -- I have nothing to do with the Wesleyan Methodists either directly or indirectly.

Elder Taylor. -- Then I must say that I am labouring under a mistake; this was certainly my understanding. I will therefore turn to Mr. Cater. I understand that he is a Baptist minister.

Mr. Cater. -- I am not a member of the Baptist Association. *

Elder Taylor. -- I was certainly told and understood until now, that you were, sir. Pray, gentlemen, what are you? (Great laughter, and no answer.)

The Rev. Mr. Long, a clergyman of the Church of England, rose and said: -- "I am not ashamed of my profession, sir; I am a clergyman of the Church of England." (Great laughter).

Elder Taylor. -- I certainly think that the gentlemen have taken a strange position, they seem to be afraid of acknowledging what their profession is. However I will proceed. I have three different ministers to do with of some persuasion, for they all call themselves Reverends. Now do their doctrines agree with the scriptures? Have they the organization, ordinances, gifts, prophecy, revelations, visions, tongues, apostles, and prophets? No! This they cannot deny, for they have all of them opposed these things; yet all of these things were associated with primitive christianity. Their offices, their doctrines, their calling, their teaching, their ordinances are all incorrect, they are devoid of the blessings, powers, unity, certainty and revelation, and are left struggling in the mazes of confusion, division, strife, uncertainty and error. They know not God nor the power of God. (Interruption). There is scarcely a principle that these gentlemen have that is correct, even the doctrine of baptism for the remission of sins they treat lightly; yet Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch -- when he believed, he immersed him in the water; John baptized in Aenon because there was much water there; St. Paul was told to "arise and be baptized, and wash away his sins," and Jesus says that, "except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can in no wise enter the kingdom of God."

Chairman (to Mr. Taylor). -- Do you wish to continue, the gentlemen on the opposite side are satisfied that it rests here?

Elder Taylor. -- I certainly did not anticipate this. I expected to investigate their principles further, according to agreement.

Chairman. -- They do not wish to say any more.

Elder Taylor. -- If they have no reply to make, of course I must let it rest.

Mr. Luddy arose and said, I presume my friends may be surprised to find me here. Mr. Taylor called upon me with a letter; he informed me that he was a stranger, and what he wished of me was to see fair play. I do not believe that good very often results from meetings of this kind. I certainly expected to hear something of the doctrines of these gentlemen, but I leave the room as ignorant as I entered it. I thought it necessary thus to explain my position. I do not believe that many have received the principles, and I must say that I am very much pleased with the good spirit manifested by the audience.

Elder Taylor. -- As I had not an opportunity in the meeting, I shall take the opportunity now to answer these gentlemen's remarks. I would here ask Mr. Luddy, very respectfully, what doctrines he expected to hear. Those doctrines contained in

__________

* Since the discussion I have been at Bath, and am informed that Mr. Cater officiated for ten years in York Street Chapel in Bath, as a Baptist minister. Mr. Marchant, a gentleman in Bath, asked a Mr. Cox, a Baptist minister, who also said he was, and was preaching at Boulogne.

There were three chairmen chosen, the Rev. K. Groves chosen by the challengers, Mr. Luddy chosen by myself, and Mr. Charles Townley, LL.D., chosen by the other two. Mr. Groves was the officiating chairman.

He completely stopped up their mouths to the point that they were afraid to even acknowledge which denomination they belonged to so their doctrines could be compared!

First they want to put a stop to inquiries into the Characters of the people in the Bible because the audience is too stupid to judge for themselves.

Then they Lied and hedged on what denominations they belonged to so their doctrines couldn't be comparied or reviewed.

Then they folded their hand, stacked up the chairs, and went home.

I have to say to Xander thank you so much for bringing this to my attention it has been quite entertaining!

Edited September 1, 2011 by Zakuska

[Jaybear]

I think that the term "anti-Mormon" can be overused. But people who fight against Mormon claims or substantially oppose the Church and its doctrines are, by any reasonable definition of the term, anti-Mormons.

Can be overused?

It a pejorative term, that adds nothing to a civil discussion. If you can show me an example of where referring to another poster as an "anti-mormon" provided a meaningful contribution to the thread, I would love to see it.

[frankenstein]

I have yet to see myself being labled an anti-mormon and I've found myself disagreeing with some defenders here, and I've even focalized it a few times. I daresay this characterization is untrue overall. I wouldn't put it past some LDS to paint it as you describe, but everyone here? Nah...I call your bluff.

before you make your call, I respectfully request that first you get my statement correct. I did not state "everyone" nor did use "all" or any term which is all inclusive. it is well documented what others have accused me of simply because I disagreed with them. And it is well documented on this board that to some an unbiased true articulation of the facts that does not support the "defenders" agenda will result in accusation of confederacy with anti-mormon.

Edited September 1, 2011 by frankenstein

[stemelbow]

before you make your call, I respectfully request that first you get my statement correct. I did not state "everyone" nor did use "all" or any term which is all inclusive. it is well documented what others have accused me of simply because I disagreed with them. And it is well documented on this board that to some an unbiased true articulation of the facts that does not support the "defenders" agenda will result in accusation of confederacy with anti-mormons.

Hey there frankestein. You had said, "the very same can be said and shown of "lds defenders" on this board". Who are you accusing of jumping to the "anti-Mormon" label when one disagrees with an lds defender? those defenders who post on this board. I don't know how else to read it but as all-inclusive. but, if you wish to revise your wording and say some posters, even here, might label you as an anti-mormon for disagreement, then that's cool. I hear ya. I don't think its a fair way to go about it--much like Kevin's way of discussing Dr. Peterson.

[frankenstein]

Hey there frankestein. You had said, "the very same can be said and shown of "lds defenders" on this board". Who are you accusing of jumping to the "anti-Mormon" label when one disagrees with an lds defender? those defenders who post on this board. I don't know how else to read it but as all-inclusive. but, if you wish to revise your wording and say some posters, even here, might label you as an anti-mormon for disagreement, then that's cool. I hear ya. I don't think its a fair way to go about it--much like Kevin's way of discussing Dr. Peterson.

while I myself defend the Church, I do not consider myself a "lds defender", the quotations, make it clear that I referring to particular set of persons and not all the lds on the board. needless to say, some of the persons here are prone and almost incapable of, not issuing insults and accusations of confederacy simply because another person has disagreed with them.

[stemelbow]

while I myself defend the Church, I do not consider myself a "lds defender", the quotations, make it clear that I referring to particular set of persons and not all the lds on the board. needless to say, some of the persons here are prone and almost incapable of, not issuing insults and accusations of confederacy simply because another person has disagreed with them.

I can agree that there are some personalities here that are not easy to deal with, if that's what you mean. I had no idea that your quotation marks made anything clear. Indeed, it was the opposite of clear to me--I'm not sure how I missed the clarity in fact. Oh well...i think its fairly clear to me now. There are some Kevin's on both sides of the aisle.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

while I myself defend the Church,

You do? That is a new one for me.

[frankenstein]

You do? That is a new one for me.

my defence of the Church is to make sure that individual LDS who act in the furtherance of their own philosophies mingled with scripture are not lieing, deceiving, or otherwise misleading others. I do understand that some here can not comprehend my actions are defending the Church as a whole and that I will not support the deceptive acts of individual LDS to further their own agendas.

Oh and I would like to thank you for being true to your form in that you have issued an insult towards me, at least I know you are consistent.

There are some Kevin's on both sides of the aisle.

On the principle we agree, though to use Kevin's is not reflective of the issue, as the behaviour acknowledge as being on both sides pre-dates Kevin's involvement and IIRC he and others have stated that the actions of the certain LDS were contributory to leaving the Church. I must say that it is very disappointing that a prominent "apologists" has only offered character assassination on this thread. Another point, in a recent article about the FAIR Conference, a particular presenter rather than prove someone wrong, choose instead to well poison and character assassinate; yet this presenter was in a far better position to prove wrong by providing his own analysis.

Edited September 1, 2011 by frankenstein

[Zakuska]

So our first three contenders have struck out and slunk out of the stadium with their tale between their legs, so now the Moderator turns prosecutor picks up the fallen standard and aided by another Christian Clergyman take the bat for another inning.

I'll pick up the conversation kind of in the middle because much of the first part is repetition from the conversation had previously.

...Mr. Groves then tells us "that learning makes the man. I am now past the meridian of life, I have pained my head with study for near forty years, and I never was more convinced of the necessity of a person being learned to prepare him to preach the Gospel than I am at the present." I believe, with Mr. Groves, that learning and intelligence are good, and I would recommend it to all, and say with Solomon, with all thy getting, get wisdom; but as to its necessity to prepare a person to preach the Gospel, I should very much doubt that; Jesus was of a different opinion, he chose unlearned men, and taught them by his Spirit; how far learning will do without that we have had a fair specimen, both in the gentlemen I have discussed faith and also in Mr. Groves. We are next told that "we do not want any more Gospel." This I can easily believe, I think the Gospel we have already is altogether too much for the faith of these gentlemen. Mr. Groves says, "We know of no other way of judging a new revelation than by miracles." A little while ago Mr. Groves told us, that we were to have no miracles; now he would have us try a new revelation by them. Mr. Groves, have you had no testimony about miracles? However, I will inform Mr. Groves on this subject; Isaiah knew of another way, viii. 19. "And when they shall say unto you, seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to that, it is because there is no light in them." "Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God; he that abideth in the doctrine of Christ hath both the Father and the Son." 2 John 9: This is the way the scriptures point out to try professors with. It is all I require at any time. Miracles are a very uncertain standard. John the Baptist came with a new revelation; Jesus says there never was a greater prophet, "nevertheless John did no miracle," yet Mr. Groves's test would condemn him. What miracles did Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Habakkuk, Hosea Malachi, or Joel do? they all came with "new revelations." Will Mr. Groves reject their testimony? The Rev. gentlemen next construes an argument made use of by me. He states that I brought forth certain passages of scripture, giving an account of lost books as a proof that we were to have no more revelation. I brought those forward to disprove a statement made by Mr. Cater, that the word of God was complete and perfect. Mr. Groves states that these books are not needed. Where did he get his information from? There are books of prophets, seers, and revelations, visions, prophecies, epistles, and doctrines, the word of the Lord; who has a right to say the word of the Lord is not needed? if it is not, why then were these things given? Did the Lord or Mr. Groves know best? He has also misconstrued another argument of mine; I did not say that persecution proved the truth of a doctrine, Mr. Groves; I stated what I now say, that a man may be a good man, and yet be persecuted. We are next informed that "the primitive church might be compared to a child, that as soon as the child was old enough to walk, the gifts, miracles, prophecy, apostles, &c., were not to follow. It is plain these things were done away immediately." Did it never occur to you, sir, that these things were part of the child, its limbs, eyes, ears, hands, head, feet -- every thing? I Cor. xii. "No man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost. Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same spirit, there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, but the same God that worketh all in all; but the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal; for to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gift of healing by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of Spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: but all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to each man severally as he will, for as the body is one and hath many members, and all the members of that one body being many, are one body, so also is Christ; for by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles; whether we be bond or free; and have all been made to drink into one Spirit; for the body is not one member, but many; and the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee; nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of thee. * * * And God hath set some in the church, first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers; after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues, &c." This is St. Paul's description of the body of Christ complete. Mr. Groves would expect the child, when it got old enough, to walk with out these things; he would strip it of its limbs, arms, legs, &c., and tell it to walk. I think the child is dead, and the figure of a decrepid, maimed, old man, who has been in the wars, is substituted in its place; so deformed is the representation that it cannot be recognized. I think if the old gentleman was not blind, as well as maimed, he never would present himself as the full grown body of that perfect infant; why not acknowledge that these blessings were removed because of corruption? Why seek to make the scriptures bend to your corrupt systems? Why not as honest men acknowledge the truth? Mr. Groves next tells us of "a passage being read, giving an account of a beautiful happy land which Rasselas sought in vain; but this was given by Orson Pratt, an interested witness." Mr. Groves: Mr. Pratt copied it from the Liverpool Mercury, and that journal copied it from the New York Herald, and you know it! I told you that it was taken from these papers. The trouble is, it is given by a gentleman, and not by a minister; but I never knew that a strange gentleman was an interested witness. You have before attempted to throw discredit upon my testimony. I will now answer it. What kind of testimony have we of Jesus? His apostles were his witnesses; were they not interested? Was not their reputation, their honour, and their prospects, both in time and in eternity, based on the divinity of Jesus, and on the truth of their testimony? Who testified of the apostles? Themselves; were they disinterested witnesses? yet their own writings are their testimonials.

You know... Ive been accused on a couple other boards of not knowing anything about Christian doctrines and that when Mormons say that Christian minister where saying the bible was closed and there was no more need for revelation etc.etc. etc. they are/where lying. Yet in this discoruse we have 5 Christian clergymen saying left and right straight up exactly what us Mormons have been saying they said. Its irrefutable evidence.

But now comes the ole' cop out... "But they never claimed to be Prophets" (aka litlte Christs Incarnate who can never make mistakes).

If they never claimed to be Prophets then what in the world are the preaching the Bible for?!

Edited September 1, 2011 by Zakuska

[Deborah]

my defence of the Church is to make sure that individual LDS who act in the furtherance of their own philosophies mingled with scripture are not lieing, deceiving, or otherwise misleading others.

I'm wondering who gave you that authority to judge others and why you think they are wrong and you aren't.

[Zakuska]

I'm wondering who gave you that authority to judge others and why you think they are wrong and you aren't.

I think he needs to read Romans 14 and take the chapter to heart.

[frankenstein]

I'm wondering who gave you that authority to judge others and why you think they are wrong and you aren't.

Elder Oaks has stated that essentially it is our duty to judge. And when I claim someone is wrong, I have proof that they are wrong, or rather proof that they are being deceptive or misleading. When someone mislabels LDS Doctrine to promote their own personal agenda, that is easy to point out. If someone misrepresents facts or presents information in a biased manner that is easy to point out with a unbiased presentation of the facts. If someone begins to attack the character of another who has presented uncomfortable information about the Church, it is easy to point out that the defender is not addressing the substance of the claim.

In the Book of Mormon we are taught that those who know not the law are not condemned by the law. This principle - knowning and acting contrary - is why I am largely unconcerned with the actions of non-LDS. Some LDS like to justify their actions with "well its the nature of the board" that is those LDS resort to a "eye for eye" standard rather than the higher Gold standard.

I think he needs to read Romans 14 and take the chapter to heart.

thanks this sums up the intent of my actions

"but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." I act to prevent stumbling blocks.

Edited September 1, 2011 by frankenstein

[Zakuska]

thanks this sums up the intent of my actions

"but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." I act to prevent stumbling blocks.

Nice quote mining... lets see what the verses right before it say...

Romans 14

9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more:... <Your SNIP Goes here>

Pauls who point in the chapter is let Christ be the judge and don't judge your brother. Even if he has a wrong Idea (worshipping on saturday instead of Sunday, Eating Pork, etc. etc.) its not really your place to straighten him out, Its the Lords. He's the Lords Servant not yours. (see v4)

Edited September 1, 2011 by Zakuska

[Analytics]

And, extending his judgments from religion into his (I think relatively new) leftist political ideology, our genial polymath friend has also recently disclosed that Thomas Sowell is a liar. (Hence, Kevin says, it is unnecessary to read what Sowell has written prior to condemning it.)

If you are trying to discredit Kevin, that's a bad example--Thomas Sowell is a liar--the way Sowell brazenly blamed the housing collapse on the Community Reinvestment Act is a nice narrative, but it is absolutely false—so clearly false that there is no way Sowell could really believe it.

We can discuss this point further on Shades' board.

[frankenstein]

Pauls who point in the chapter is let Christ be the judge and don't judge your brother. Even if he has a wrong Idea (worshipping on saturday instead of Sunday, Eating Pork, etc. etc.) its not really your place to straighten him out, Its the Lords. He's the Lords Servant not yours. (see v4)

it really does not matter what came before the part I quoted. It is clear that Paul is providing a standard by which to judge. It is also clear the Elder Oaks, as Elder Oaks, gave a talking on judging wherein he stated we are to judge. I do not condemn anyone in the eternities, but it is my duty to judge the here and now, according to Paul, when I see a stumbling block I am to say something, such is what I do.

[Zakuska]

it really does not matter what came before the part I quoted. It is clear that Paul is providing a standard by which to judge. It is also clear the Elder Oaks, as Elder Oaks, gave a talking on judging wherein he stated we are to judge. I do not condemn anyone in the eternities, but it is my duty to judge the here and now, according to Paul, when I see a stumbling block I am to say something, such is what I do.

Today we've have been reading John Taylors talk. Earlier John Taylor mentions how things are to be measured, and he quotes several verses from Isaiah and Jesus. The Scriptures are the Rule. Now please don't accuse me of the fallacy of appeal to Authority, but if Elder Oaks is telling us to Judge he is going against Jesus (Matt 7) AND Paul (Romans 14) AND a Previous President of the Church and can be safely set asside.

Ill have to CFR you on the Talk please.

The stumbling block Paul is speaking of in this Chapter is the act of a Brother Judging a Brother and cuasing discord and disunity in the church and offending others out of the Church. Its saying that if your brother gets offended at something you do or say or beleive. Don't do it infront of him nor ablige him to participate or beleive the same way you do. Be content and let Christ do the Judging. At the same time you shouldn't get offended because your Brother beleives what he does.

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Zakuska

[Maidservant]

The exchange recorded with Elder Taylor puts me in mind of John chapter 5.

Jesus healed a man who could not walk, and told him to get up and then carry his bed away. The religious leaders of the day stopped the man and said, It is against God's laws to be carrying your bed on the Sabbath. He said, Well, the man who healed me told me to do that.

So the culprit was finally located to be Jesus and when they came to him, he discussed a lot of things with them. He started off with this:

16 My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

He did not say "God", he only said "Father". And, indeed, the leaders' hearts became more threatened and threatening toward this new minister (Jesus). Not only did he break the Sabbath, but He said that God was his Father, and made himself equal to God (hmmmm, sounds familiar . . .)

Jesus then spent some time discussing his direct authority to represent the Father, as well as resting his belief, authority and message on a living (personal) witness.

38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.

He warned those listening about the limits of written text, even that which is considered sacred. Indeed, in verse 38, he said that the word should be IN US, not on a page . . . in order to know what is true about God. And he even gets slightly testy about how written texts about God get used:

39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life.

Then he goes on to explain a little better about how the relationship between written text and living, revelatory religion ought to work.

My point is that, to me, this experience of Jesus echoes very well with the experience that the ministers of the Father and of Jesus Christ (i.e. the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) today still find challenging as they answer what is leveled at them similar to the challenges laid at Jesus' feet.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If you are trying to discredit Kevin, that's a bad example--Thomas Sowell is a liar--the way Sowell brazenly blamed the housing collapse on the Community Reinvestment Act is a nice narrative, but it is absolutely false—so clearly false that there is no way Sowell could really believe it.

We can discuss this point further on Shades' board.

I am not sure how that makes one a liar. I happen to think he was quite correct, well.... that and the sub prime mortgages.

"So clearly false." What ever.

[frankenstein]

The Scriptures are the Rule. Now please don't accuse me of the fallacy of appeal to Authority, but if Elder Oaks is telling us to Judge he is going against Jesus (Matt 7) AND Paul (Romans 14) AND a Previous President of the Church and can be safely set asside. Ill have to CFR you on the Talk please.

'Judge Not' and Judging"

"In contrast to forbidding mortals to make final judgments, the scriptures require mortals to make what I will call “intermediate judgments.”

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Yes, I agree with AoF 11, which is why I believe that a Satan worshiper has just as much rights to worship as anyone else.

However, in the confines of the LDS Faith, and with in its Doctrines, it is the place of every person to correct Doctrine, therefore is someone is misrepresenting Doctrine, it is the place of another to correct the misrepresentation. I can not recall it directly off the top of my head but I believe one of the duties of the Priesthood is to correct Doctrine.

Edited September 1, 2011 by frankenstein

[Analytics]

I am not sure how that makes one a liar. I happen to think he was quite correct, well.... that and the sub prime mortgages.

"So clearly false." What ever.

If you say something you know is false, then you are a liar. That describes John Taylor, when he was a polygamist denying that Mormons practice polygamy, and it describes Thomas Sowell when he blamed the sub-prime mortgage crisis on the CRA.

I’m sorry you fell for the propaganda on this issue.

[Zakuska]

Man this bunny just keeps on going and going...

"N. B. -- Mr. Cleeve denied publicly being a Wesleyan minister, or being in any wise connected with the Wesleyan Society. What means the following sign over the door of his chapel: 'Wesleyan Chapel.' And also the following sotice insude: 'Wesleyan Station at Boulogne.' Mr Cater denied belonging to the 'Baptist Association;' if they are ashamed of their societies I am not of mine. I am an Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. "J. T."

"No. 15, Rue de la Lampe."