Rich's Website

[_Valorius]

Along theses lines, I asked a respected Christian theologian/apologist to go through the Jehovah’s Witness article on my site to see if he thought there was any problems with it.

So you asked an anti-JW if he thought there was anything wrong with your anti-JW articles?

Wow, Rich.

Calling a respected theologian and Christian apologist "anti-" anything. That is really low. But perhaps I am premature. Perhaps you actually know this respected Christian, and have read his writings or attended his lectures. Perhaps your attack against this respected person is based on a personal intimacy, and scholarly superiority. Is that it? No, we have seen too much. Your immoderate accusations seem based on guesswork. The chatty rumor-mongering of a name-calling attention-seeker.

[_Simon Belmont]

I read a post from a Christian father who joined a message board telling a story along these lines: “I raised my daughter as a Christian and she went to Church with me her whole life. Now she is 18 and has fallen in love with a young Mormon man. She just announced that she is going to marry him and I have just learned that her mother and I will not be allowed at the wedding. Please help.”

My thoughts are always, “Perhaps if you and your daughter had looked into Mormonism before she got engaged to this man, she may have made a more informed decision?”

Before I buy something from Amazon.com I read all of the reviews, both pro and con. If people would do the same type of comparison when it comes to their faith, at least they would have a ‘heads up’ about what they were buying.

For this dad it was too late. His daughter ended up shunning him. And, I’m not judging if shunning was the right or wrong thing to do. My point is: If dad would have looked into the LDS faith before this point in his life, at least he would have known what to expect. The answer, according to the daughter, is for dad and mom to convert to Mormonism. Problem solved!

The good news is: If the father and mother do become Mormons now, not only will they be redeemed in the eyes of their daughter, they will finally learn something about Mormonism!

Going to a church where teachings about contending faiths are not allowed, leaves the congregation wide-open to recieve messages from the Elders on the street, or, at the door.

Oh yes, Rich. You are so fair, you're only telling the truth, and telling it from both perspectives at that! You're fairly showing both sides of the argument and letting readers decide for themselves.

Not!

Let's take a look at your "Other Sites and Articles" section, specifically under the "LDS / Mormon" section.

Hmmm...

Only one neutral website is linked (Uncle Dale's website), and one link to a specific LDS.org article, which you've highlighted to make your point. The rest hostile toward the church. 24 links, 2 of them not hostile. Is that fair, Rich? Are you the webmaster of a balanced research site, or of an anti-Mormon hate site? The site speaks for itself. You can choose to ignore me, but you cannot ignore your hate.

[_rich kelsey]

Along theses lines, I asked a respected Christian theologian/apologist to go through the Jehovah’s Witness article on my site to see if he thought there was any problems with it.

So you asked an anti-JW if he thought there was anything wrong with your anti-JW articles?

Wow, Rich.

For those interested: That same JW article has been read by active Jehovah’s Witnesses on several occasions. A Bible student/historian, a woman I know, people from a message board I joined. It has also been read by all sorts of people on Paradise café. I have received several PMs and e-mails and on-line dialogs with people within and without of the JW faith and some of them have helped guide the content of the article. Most of them have expressed gratitude to me for creating such a work.

When I write and/or refine an article, I try my best to get knowable people involved. I try to get people from the particular faith involved!

The reason I asked the Christian man in my Church to read the work is because he was part of the Church board. He was not allowed to vote because he had been married, then divorced, and married again, so he did not qualify for the rules set up in this particular church to be an Elder. We did not have an active Jehovah’s Witness on the church board. It was a Baptist Church!

[_rich kelsey]

Here is a comment from an active JW:

Comments on,

Two Claims of Jehovah's Witnesses Examined

8-8-10

“Terrible lies. Jehovah witness does not say Jesus is coming again. Lol. Revelation clearly states that satan will be thrown out of heaven and woe to the earth. Book of Daniel prophecy puts the date of Satan being thrown out of heaven at 1914. I recommend you get your facts in order before you publish these things. I love the end of your message with the donate part. I can't imagine Jesus asking for money for this disservice you provide…”

— Lang Ngo

My response:

Charles Russell, the man whom the Jehovah’s Witnesses consider their founder, penned a pamphlet in the 1800s entitled:

THE OBJECT AND MANNER OF OUR LORD'S RETURN

In Russell's pamphlet he spelled out the word “coming” while writing of Christ's return:

(Page 21) “… at His [Christ’s] coming—alone it is said…”

(Page 23) “Peter says, at the coming of the Lord…”

(Page 39) “Briefly stated we believe the scriptures to teach, that, at His [Christ’s] coming and for a time after He has come, He will remain invisible…”

When I used the word “coming” in my article, I was using the same language that Russell used to describe this event; I was merely quoting Watchtower publications. I even quoted from a Watchtower book printed in the 1980s, which used the term "coming."

Therefore, Lang Ngo, when you verbalize,

“Terrible lies. Jehovah witness does not say Jesus is coming again."

People may be left wondering if it is you, who does not have,

"your facts in order."

Also,

I am scratching my head, wondering what words in my article you consider,

"Terrible lies."

Rich Kelsey

8-8-10

"Coming again means returning to earth. Coming means showing his power on earth from heaven. We believe the latter. Clearly our beliefs are that Jesus will not return to earth… Yes Jesus is coming. Jesus is coming. It says so in Bible many times. But not in the flesh. Not coming again. Unbelievable." Lang Ngo

My Response:

The photo above is from a Watchtower book which I have in my library: (You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth , 1982, p. 142)

Here, this Jehovah's Witness publication quotes Christ's words in the gospel of John:

"I AM COMING AGAIN" (John 14:3)

Lang,

It’s rather ironic that when you read my article, and posted the comment above, I did not have the words, “coming again” anywhere in my work.

It’s more ironic that the words you claim are,

“Unbelievable”

came from Jesus Christ.

Well, we all make mistakes. And, hopefully some of us learn from our mistakes.

I will make use of your textual criticism by including within my article the photo of the Watchtower publication containing the words,

“I AM COMING AGAIN.”

In this way, you have helped me make this article more informative.

Rich Kelsey

8-9-10

“Lol. He was referring to his resurrection in his own time. Clearly. Please post these comments. Lol. I'm no longer wasting my time with you… Lol.” Lang Ngo

My response:

Please look at the above photo one more time. In this chapter the Watchtower Society of Jehovah’s Witnesses uses Christ’s words,

“I AM COMING AGAIN” (Jn. 14:3)

to describe his return.

Not his resurrection!

Then, a few pages later they link Christ’s return to the year 1914. (see endnote # 1)

Also,

Charles Russell, the man whom Jehovah's Witnesses consider their founder wrote:

"That our Lord intended us as His disciples to understand, that tor some purpose, in some manner, and at some time, He would come again, is, we presume, admitted and believed by all familiar with the scriptures. But the object of that coming is viewed from widely different standpoints…" (Object and Manner of Our Lords Return / Chapter 1. The Object of the Second Advent, p.3, 1877)

Russell was not speaking of Christ's resurrection; he was speaking of Christ's return.

Note: I felt that I needed to respond to Lang’s comments because he clearly misrepresented the content of my work. I have meticulously documented this article; it is based on 30 years of research; I have honestly presented the facts — there are no lies in this work.

Rich Kelsey

Endnotes:

1. The position maintained by Jehovah’s Witnesses today:

“I AM COMING AGAIN.” (John 14:3) Jesus Christ made this promise to his apostles when he was with them the night before his death. You will probably agree that never has there been a greater need for peace, health and life that Christ’s return in Kingdom power will bring to mankind. But how does Christ return? Who will see him, and in what way?

At his return, Christ does not come to live on earth. Rather, those who are to rule as kings with him are taken to live with him in heaven…

… Christ’s return does not mean that he literally comes back to this earth. Rather, it means that he takes Kingdom power toward this earth and turns his attention to it. He does not need to leave his heavenly throne and actually come down to earth to do this. As we have seen in the previous chapter, Bible evidence shows that in the year 1914 C.E. God’s time arrived for Christ to return and began ruling.”(You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, 1982, pp. 142 and 147)

[_Simon Belmont]

For readers, Rich isn't at all interested in the truth.

If he were, he would not post only anti-Mormon links.

Oh yes, Rich. You are so fair, you're only telling the truth, and telling it from both perspectives at that! You're fairly showing both sides of the argument and letting readers decide for themselves.

Not!

Let's take a look at your "Other Sites and Articles" section, specifically under the "LDS / Mormon" section.

Hmmm...

Only one neutral website is linked (Uncle Dale's website), and one link to a specific LDS.org article, which you've highlighted to make your point. The rest hostile toward the church. 24 links, 2 of them not hostile. Is that fair, Rich? Are you the webmaster of a balanced research site, or of an anti-Mormon hate site? The site speaks for itself. You can choose to ignore me, but you cannot ignore your hate.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

For readers, Rich isn't at all interested in the truth.

If he were, he would not post only anti-Mormon links.

Please list each of his links that you have deemed anti-Mormon along with the reason.

[_Simon Belmont]

Please list each of his links that you have deemed anti-Mormon along with the reason.

No.

[_Morley]

No.

Simon, I'm reminding you to respond to my last post about Jesus' criticism of the religious sects of his day, if you would.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

Please list each of his links that you have deemed anti-Mormon along with the reason.

No.

Then please STFU.

[_Simon Belmont]

Then please STFU.

Pardon me, I assumed you were intelligent to go to Rich's website and view the links yourself. With the exception of Uncle Dale's website, and one article from LDS.org, all 22 links are anti-Mormon from well-known anti-Mormon websites.

Go look, I'm not doing your homework for you.