The Definitive MADhouse Quote Page.

[_Quasimodo]

Seems masturbation is unfair both to wives and livestock.

So true, Moksha. When I lived in Utah I remember many farm wives and ewes looking dejected. Now I understand why.

[_Buffalo]

Yes, exaltation is "earned" in a sense, but it is "earned" through the grace of Jesus Christ. Without Him, there is no salvation, period. The Church has always emphatically declared this.

Earned grace, eh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

[_DrW]

In his explanation of Mormon truth, Buzzard says that President Monson is the only human on Earth who has the power to act in Gods name and speak in God's name for the whole Earth. Buzzard continues:

IMHO, if you don't believe that, you might as well be a Methodist. They are a lot cheaper, and from what I understand, have the best potlucks around.

Now that is what I call "Mormon truth".

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57007-is-exclusive-truth-bad/

[_Buffalo]

Call me when there is a radical change to: faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, Repentence of sins, baptism by immersion, receiving the Holy Spirit, and enduring to the end.

I guess Kevin just skips over the late Nauvoo/Brigham Young era of Mormonism.

[_Darth J]

On a thread about alleged "Hebraisms" in the Book of Mormon, cdowis repeatedly outwits himself: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/569 ... of-mormon/

Post #58:

Parallelism is a flawed argument.

For example, I can provide proof that the Book of Mormon was written in the 20th century. There are clear references to the Teliban, for example, where we have terrorists with a standing army who flee to the mountains in the winderness, and pursuit by government troops. Who could miss the the references to the Mafia and their oaths, We see "TV preachers", references to Darwinisn, to the arguments of modern atheists.

The Book of Mormon is clearly a production of the 20th century, based on the argument of parallelism.

The burden is on yourself to prove that there are references only to the 19th century, and to no other post 19th century culture.

Unfortunately, everything that is touted to be evidence of the Book of Mormon's ancient origin consists of parallelism.

Post #70:

This argument has been addressed previously. The problem is that one can prove ANYTHING given certain assumptions.

See, e.g., the collected works of FAIR and the Maxwell Institute.

[_3sheets2thewind]

Daniel Peterson, on 02 March 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:
We don't know the reason for the ban.
Perhaps it was a mistake. In that case, we don't know why the Lord permitted it to endure until 1978.
If it wasn't a mistake, we still don't know the reason for it.

Frankenstein responded:
You are not stating the position of the church.
The Church stated the precise reason is not know. You are rewriting the Church statement with your personal statement.
If the ban wasn't a mistake then as stated by the Church the PRECISE reason is not known. (I have to use caps at the moment because I can not access the bold option)
The precise reason is not known and it is dishonest to use suggest anything contra to the Chief h position.

Daniel Peterson if the First Presidency and Apostles stated "not know precisely" why do you not present the Official position.

Some douche-bag Mod responded:
Frankenstein has left the building.
---------------------------------------
so frankenstein gets banned for pointing out that DCP is being dishonest about the position of the Church.

[_Shulem]

Daniel Peterson, on 02 March 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:
We don't know the reason for the ban.
Perhaps it was a mistake. In that case, we don't know why the Lord permitted it to endure until 1978.

Daniel C Peterson is not being truthful.

The Mormon church looked down on black people. The founding prophet even called one of the chief gods of Egypt a slave just because he was black.

So, BYU school teachers can take that and stuff it right up their lying prophet's ass. If I had a diploma from BYU, I'd burn the damn thing. BYU is an institution born of lies. Their Egyptology department is among the worst in the world. They can't even spell SHULEM! And the Mormon prophets can't even pretend to prophesy because they know they will be proven wrong later on. Par for the course!

Paul O

[_Buffalo]

What else would you expect from someone who uses the face of an infamous and self confessed sex predator for an avatar?

He's referring here to LDST's avatar of Harvey Milk. Harvey Milk is apparently a sex predator because he shagged a 14 year old youth. Come on, apologists. Those who live in glass houses and all that.

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/26-He ... imball.htm

[_Bond James Bond]

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/571 ... g-numbers/

I'm not quoting anything specifically but would like to site the entire thread as an example of callous and smug behavior. Here they are having an entire discussion about the logistics of proxy temple for more than 100 billion people without ever having the meta discussion about the ethics of it. Are you kidding me?

Edits!
_________________________________
Alright I was wrong I want to quote something. Here we go with the humble Zerinus speculating that there will be 100 million Mormons in 200 years (complete with his expert graph made with...MS paint that boldly and scientifically lets out the truth:

According to my projections of the graph found in that website, the total membership of the Church in 200 years from now is close to 100,000,000.

But wait! Someone double checked the math and we find out that Zerinus was being conservative:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/571 ... 1209099041

When you're projecting growth, small changes make a big difference.

For example, let's look at things 200 years out and assume world population grows at 1%.

Right now, LDS makes up about 0.2% of the world or 1 of every 400 people in the world are LDS.

If LDS grows at 2.4%, in 200 years 1 in every 27 people will be LDS.
If church grows at 1.5%, in 200 years 1 in every 160 people will be LDS.
If church grows at 1%, in 200 years the same 1 in every 400 people.
If church grows at 0.5%, in 200 years 1 in 1,156 people will be LDS.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/571 ... 1209099044

I don't think so. The growth rate is actually exponential. I erred on the side of caution. The true figure in 200 years time is more likely to be close to 200,000,000, if past trends continue.

That's right sports fans! Not 100 million but approximately 200 million Mormons by 2212! Yes indeed!

[_Buffalo]

The issue is not why haven't we found any evidence. The question is why would we expect to find any evidence.

Mopologetic white flag.