My Work Here is Done

[_selek]

Warm regards, Doctor Scratch. Hope to see you around.

[_selek]

Why not lead by example, Droops?

I have. How much have I been posting here recently?

I seem to recall that you have left here numerous times, Droopyballs! For some reason, you just keep coming back...kinda like a bad rash.

[_Doctor Scratch]

The LDS attack talks/books/curricula also give numerous reasons why every other Christian denomination should be rejected as being man-made and not inspired.

Where do they say other Christian denominations should be exterminated, their leaders tarred and feathered, their people driven out of their homes, their sacred texts drug on the street?

Could you cite the page numbers where these kinds of things are said in the books you mentioned above?

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Could you cite the page numbers where these kinds of things are said in the books you mentioned above?

Good evening Dr. Scratch. in real life Identity deleted.... a.k.a. Simon Belmont, will not be able to provide the aforementioned quotes because they simply do not exist.

It's interesting that in real life Identity Deleted.... a.k.a. Simon Belmont has a well-recorded history of lying, deceiving and intentionally fabricating, but feigns outrage over certain critics not representing Mormonism truthfully. Strange.

Maybe your work in exposing the hypocrisy and idiocy in mopologetics isn't finished after all, Dr. Scratch.

[_Yoda]

(Moderator Note) Everybody Wang Chung, I realize that your faux moderating was done in blue, and you are joking, but please refrain from this type of activity in the future. As per the rules, no faux moderating is allowed. Thanks.

[_Darth J]

The LDS attack talks/books/curricula also give numerous reasons why every other Christian denomination should be rejected as being man-made and not inspired.

Where do they say other Christian denominations should be exterminated, their leaders tarred and feathered, their people driven out of their homes, their sacred texts drug on the street?

1. None of the "anti-Mormon" publications you cite say those things.

2. Can you provide a list of how many people have been killed---ever---because of "anti-Mormon" publications? (Hint: Joseph and Hyrum Smith were not killed because of what the Nauvoo Expositor said. They were killed because they unlawfully destroyed a printing press, an act that had previously caused violence in Illinois and had nothing to do with Mormons.)

3. Despite your hysteria and Joseph Smith's spin (which Dan Vogel previously alluded to), early Mormons were persecuted because of social and political reasons and Joseph Smith's spectacular failures as a leader, not because of their religious beliefs.

And the reason that is a standard talking point is that it is indisputably true.

And you can tell an anti-Mormon publication by its fruits. If it mentions the standard anti-Mormon talking points, there is the red flag.

True or not, it raises the red flag.

I see. So now you have devolved to the point where someone is persecuting you if they refer to claims of fact that are true.

It is also a standard anti-Mormon talking point that the Book of Mormon is a work of 19th-century fiction. Therefore, any publication that does not accept the Book of Mormon as an ancient historical record is an anti-Mormon. It just raises the red flag.

It is a standard anti-Mormon talking point that polygamy was bad. Mitt Romney has said that he can't imagine anything more awful than polygamy. Therefore, Mitt Romney is an anti-Mormon. He has raised the red flag.

That was a talk in General Conference, not a book. And Holland specifically says in that talk, "In addressing this we do not need to be apologists for our faith, but we would like not to be misunderstood." http://LDS.org/general-conference/2007/ ... t?lang=eng

Would the talk have been given had there been no criticisms of our faith?

Jeffrey R. Holland actually has authority to speak on behalf of the LDS Church. FAIR, the MI, and internet Mormons like you do not. And Holland says that when "criticism" arises, like the truism that "Mormons are not traditional Christians," WE DO NOT NEED TO BE APOLOGISTS FOR OUR FAITH. So you've got an apostle contradicting the premise of your delusional babbling that has gone on for several pages now. But since you are a Mopologist disciple, and not really someone who believes in what the LDS Church teaches, it isn't surprising that you keep going even when church leaders contradict you.

Which specific denomination of the Mormon movement (LDS, FLDS, Community of Christ, Bickeronites, etc.) do you believe is being attacked by discussing varying accounts of the First Vision, since they all believe that Joseph Smith had that vision?

That is plainly obvious and hyperbole on your part.

No, it isn't hyperbole, and it isn't obvious that they are referring specifically to the LDS Church, notwithstanding your solipsism. Every single one of those denominations claims to be the church that Joseph Smith started, and every single one believes in the First Vision and the Book of Mormon. If Joseph Smith was not a prophet, or the Book of Mormon is a fraud, then the universal set of Mormonism is nullified.

Similarly, when LeGrand Richards says that the idea that we are saved by grace alone is a deception of Satan, he is condemning the entire subset of Christian denominations who believe that.

Simon, really.......find a therapist. Obviously, Mormonism has left you neurotic, unbalanced, angry, and unable to think coherently. Maybe a professional can help you. Your pointless lashing out at anyone who dares dispute your cherished beliefs is really only showing how weak your faith is. All you are able to do is try to stifle discussion and silence criticism, because you are extremely poorly equipped to address substantive criticism of Mormonism in general or the LDS Church in particular.

Yes, much like the KKK is not racist, because they attack blacks (and other ethnic groups) in general, not one specific black person.

Latter-day Saints attack a very broad people, not a small, specific subset of certain denominations. Latter-day Saints are analogous to those who say, "red pens are of the devil."

It is the difference between saying "[group of people] are sexual predators," and "[specific person] is a sexual predator." The second could be actionable libel.

Truth is a defense to libel. So the first question would be whether the allegation is true, but of course you just admitted that you think that even saying things that are true about Mormonism is still "anti-Mormon" (this is pretending that you can sue someone for saying your church isn't true, which you can't).

This is a very bizarre concept of bigotry you have: criticizing huge categories of varying groups is perfectly acceptable, but getting specific about it is wrong.

You know, Al-Qaeda isn't really a threat to us, because they just hate Americans in general. They don't specifically hate middle-aged housewives who live in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. So because their hate is generalized, and not specific, Al-Qaeda really isn't saying anything bad at all.

You know this wonderful master's in philosophy you have said you have? Did you learn about sets, subsets, and supersets at all?

Russell's Paradox is well known to me. But that's off topic.

It isn't a paradox, Simon. For example,

Christianity--->denominations that believe in the Trinity---->Roman Catholics

If, as Jeffrey R. Holland did, you ridicule the idea of the Trinity, then you are necessarily ridiculing specific denominations that fall under the category of believing that doctrine.

Or, let's try the converse. "All Christians are stupid." That shouldn't bother you, because you aren't Christian in general. You are LDS (well, you're a Mopologist disciple, but we'll say that you're nominally LDS). See? I wasn't saying people in the LDS Church are stupid, because I wasn't talking about a specific denomination. So you should be okay with people who say that Christians are stupid.

You mean besides the church that publishes the Ensign, or your heroes at the Maxwell Institute?

I would say nobody outside of this tiny group of people gives a s*** where Nahom allegedly was.

I will leave it to the people who are interested in such things. For me, the Book of Mormon speaks for itself.

If the Book of Mormon speaks for itself, then we have no need for Book of Mormon apologetics at all.

P.S. Secular criticism of the Book of Mormon is based on letting the text speak for itself.

[_Darth J]

Here is Simon Belmont's current sig line, which is supposed to be self-evident as to its hysterical anti-Mormonism:

Mormons WON'T TELL YOU that that according to Anton Lavey's Satanic Bible, the demon god of the living dead is called "Mormo". Is it just a coincidence that the Mormons are so concerned with the dead? (MMOutreach.org)

Here is LeGrand Richards talking about every other religious denomination in the world that is not the LDS Church:

I would like to say a few words this morning about the statement the Savior made that “their creeds are an abomination in my sight.” When Satan was cast out of heaven, the cry went out: “Woe to the inhabiters of the earth … for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.” (Rev. 12:12.) “And thus he goeth … seeking to destroy the souls of men.” (D&C 10:27.) And how does he try to destroy people? By taking a little truth and mixing it with a lot of error to deceive the hearts of the people.

That is what Isaiah meant when he said: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! … For thou has said in thine heart, … I will exalt my throne above the stars of God … I will be like the most High.” (Isa. 14:12–14.) For he is the man who made the earth to tremble, who did shake kingdoms, and thus deceived the nations. (See Isa. 14:16.) That is what Jesus came to tell us, that “their creeds were an abomination in his sight” because Satan has deceived the nations.

In the few minutes that I have left I would like to mention one or two examples of Satan’s deceptions.

See, it's vicious bigotry when Christian outreach ministries say that Mormonism has Satanic origins, but it is simply proclaiming the gospel when Latter-day Saints say that every other religion in the world has Satanic origins.

I would like to mention one other thing that I think is a creed that is “an abomination in the sight of God,” and I shall mention it but briefly. At the time that Joseph Smith had that marvelous vision and saw that glorified Christ, he saw the same Jesus that came out of the tomb. He was the same one who appeared unto his apostles and had them feel the prints in his hands and the wound in his side. He was the same one who ascended into heaven in the presence of five hundred of the brethren at that time. This same Jesus appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith when the whole Christian world was worshiping an essence.

There is not time to go into a lot of detail, but their catechism says that their god has “no body; he has no parts; he has no passions.” That means that he has no eyes; he cannot see. He has no ears; he cannot hear your prayers. He has no voice; he cannot speak a word to the prophets. Some of them even say “he sits on the top of a topless throne.” How absurd! To me it seems that their description of the god that they believe in is about the best description of nothing that can be written.

Notice how "their god" is not capitalized, and is distinguished from the true God that Richards believes in.

Let's try referring a few times to "the Mormon god," while making sure to point out that this Mormon god is not the God of Christianity, and then watch Simon Belmont's reaction.

[_Tator]

My best regards Dr. Scratch

and Thanx

[_Nightlion]

2. Can you provide a list of how many people have been killed---ever---because of "anti-Mormon" publications? (Hint: Joseph and Hyrum Smith were not killed because of what the Nauvoo Expositor said. They were killed because they unlawfully destroyed a printing press, an act that had previously caused violence in Illinois and had nothing to do with Mormons.)

3. Despite your hysteria and Joseph Smith's spin (which Dan Vogel previously alluded to), early Mormons were persecuted because of social and political reasons and Joseph Smith's spectacular failures as a leader, not because of their religious beliefs.

What previous violence in Illinois was that? ETA: OH, I misread. But what WAS that extra violence after the press was destroyed?

Not religious but social? No spin there DJ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I admit Joseph Smith failed to produce Zion, but what spectacular failures as a leader are YOU talking about?

You are seriously tempting me to think you own the mantle of Sandra Tanner, DJ, with such prejudice.

[_Dan Vogel]

I'm merely holding up a mirror for Simon. I'm not making any universal claims.

Then I misread this whole paragraph of yours?

"Some Mormons think it’s a sign of being the true church to receive so much attention from the Christian world, but this situation was created by the antagonistic nature of Mormonism. Anti-Mormons were created by Mormons because their brand of the gospel needs them. The concept of a great apostasy, the mother of harlots, apostate Christendom, and the restoration are violent and colonialistic claims to the rest of the world. When the world, specifically the Christian world, decides to fight back, the Mormons cry persecution. "

All I see in this paragraph is universal assertions, many of which aren't very practical.

You said: “To spin this as some uniquely Mormon thing is just weird.”

I said: “I'm merely holding up a mirror for Simon. I'm not making any universal claims.”

This means in plain speak that I said nothing about the persecution complex being unique to Mormons. Get it?