Sethbag wrote:Are you going to pick nits with me and try to argue that Marriot wasn't "bearing testimony" about the garments physically protecting him?
I don't consider that to be bearing a testimony.
What is testimony, if not an open verification or acknowledgement of something, and what is "bearing" of it, if not the act of verifying or acknowledging? Marriott publicly verified or acknowledged his experience. This fits the meaning of the words perfectly.
Or do you mean to argue that this can only be a testimony if he says it in the Nameofjeezchristamen?
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Quasimodo wrote:If you don't believe this, you must be living in a cave.
Quasi, are you being a cave basher?
--------- by the way, we have all heard that high density polyester does not "breath". Perhaps that is what helped protect Mr. Marriott. The fire experienced clamminess. Hope that helps Mak.
The solution to the whole conundrum is the fact that there is no such dichotomy as Chapel vs. Internet Mormons. What has been used as "chapel" Mormons are the much smaller group (and the real dichotomy) of Fielding-McConkites; those who were raised on the acceptance of the non doctrinal works and statements of BRM and JSF (and Skousen and a few others) despite the Church's repudiation or nonacceptance of such.
Dr. Shades wrote:Did Noah's flood cover every square inch of planet Earth, a baptism by immersion?
A. Yes B. No
I don't believe it did. I can come up with dozens of questions that divide the church's membership into two camps, and if we stack all these divisions up on top of each other a couple of them may actually correspond roughly. Does that mean we've identified a useful dichotomy, or just that the church has people in it that believe different things, just like every other organization on the planet?
You know that's against what the Church teaches, right? (Does that make you a Nom or an apostate?)
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Dr. Shades wrote:Did Noah's flood cover every square inch of planet Earth, a baptism by immersion?
I don't believe it did.
In that case, I have some questions:
If the flood was only local, then why did God command Noah to build an ark?
If the flood was only local, then why did God command Noah to gather up animals of each species, male and female?
If the flood was only local, then when God put the rainbow in the sky as a token of His covenant, what, exactly, was He promising to never do again?
I can come up with dozens of questions that divide the church's membership into two camps, and if we stack all these divisions up on top of each other a couple of them may actually correspond roughly. Does that mean we've identified a useful dichotomy, or just that the church has people in it that believe different things, just like every other organization on the planet?
It means that there's a movement/division/schism in the church that holds that God, through His mouthpieces, is incorrect about X issues.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
(...just so those following along at home can fully appreciate just how complete and absolute is maklelan's rejection of a doctrine of God's One True and Living Church, and of His prophets and His apostles, and of His Word as contained in Holy Writ...)
Scratch wrote:The Mopologists at the Maxwell Institute have come out rather boldly to denounce the very Chapel Mormon-ish Rodney Meldrum as a "charlatan" and a fraud. We might be able to attribute this to the fact that Meldrum has been more aggressive and assertive in expressing his views, but what do the Mopologists think about the LDS who genuinely believe that Meldrum's views are Church orthodoxy?
I think that the problem Church leaders and apologists had with Meldrum was that he was using a personal revelation for his own monetary gain.
He claimed that he had received personal revelation that the spot in NY was the spot where the final Book of Mormon battle took place, and was busy selling tickets for his tour.
