I will try not to offend!

[_David A. Bednar]

A sumarai sword would be best of all. They cut through a body like a hot knife through butter. Nice, clean and efficient.

So, you could liken a Samurai sword to the sword of Laban, since they were both made of fine steel. And the sword of Laban could be likened unto the flaming sword of the Angel of polygamy, and the flaming sword of Cherubim circling about the Tree of Life making sure that the progeny of Adam do not stretch forth their hands and partake of the fruit, lest they be trapped forever in their sins.

Now I see why a gun won't work. No symbolism. Its all symbolic. Thanks pal.

Dear deseret_vulture,

Always happy to help. The sword is powerful and magical stuff. Don't mess with an angel wielding a sword. Don't do it!

My door and the vault are as always open,

Say hello to your wife from elder David A. Bednar. By the way, we have narrowed down your location. We will soon find you, be assured. Until then, all the best to you and your loved ones. The harnessed and least of the 15 of the quorum of the 12.

[_David A. Bednar]

In our weekly meetings in the temple, the brethren often get online and witness first-hand how far some of our brothers and sisters have strayed from the one true path that leads to happiness and fulfillment in this life. It breaks our hearts. Message boards will not save you. They are the tool of Satan and participation on such boards will lead you into diverse temptations. Yes, even into sin.

For someone who claims such holiness, as David does, why has he been using the "tool of Satan?" He has posted in this thread 22 times so far, and admits that "the brethren" get online together at the Mormon temple.

Brothers and Sisters, the Church is perfect, even if the members are not. What is right and godly, in one circumstance, may not be so in another. That is one of the great truths and mysteries (among so many others) that our Prophet Joseph restored to the world. This principle of godly, moral relativity was one of the truths lost through the great apostasy. Oh how marvelous it is to have prophets on the earth today. I am sure some, if not most of you, because of your unholy addiction to message boards, failed to listen to the last General Conference. So, I want to reiterate the message I gave at the conference once again. It is clear that you have taken offense to some action or words from other another. To take offense is sin. You must repent.[/

Is this guy for real? David has the words of a Pharisee, hypocrasy reaches out from his heart through his fingers which he uses to type his messages of fear, not repentance. Let me ask the readers, was Jesus not offended when he drove out the money changers in the temple with a whip? Are lies about God not something that should stir offense in our bodies and souls, since these were created by God?

I've been reading this message board for only a short time, but all that I have read concerning the issues people are having with Mormonism had nothing to do with taking offense to other members in the Mormon church. I have, however, read much about current and former LDS taking offense in Mormon doctrine and the founder, Joseph Smith. Issues like polygamy, women's role in the Mormon church and money have been some of the major problems people have been having. Ask yourselves, readers, why David, one of your apostles, fails to listen to these concerns? Why isn't he giving sufficient explaination for these issues? Isn't he supposed to be inspired by God? This kind of response should offend any person in love with the truth.

Don't let that suspension turn you into a [nastee] critic. Remember, it's all in the tone, the tone.

Well, David's "tone" is obviously passive/agressive; instead of owning his anger with this person's comments, he sneaks in an insult ([nastee] critic) without directly calling him that. This message board wouldn't even let me use the real spelling of the word "nastee!" What a great example for his "flock."

David is boring. He has no humility before God, which is expected since he does not know who God is. David, you are in my prayers. May God bless you and may you come to know who the one true God is. As for anyone else reading, do not fear the truth. If God is all good, then truth must lead to God, since all truth is good. God is all good, therefore, all truth must lead to God. Our human reason is a primary faculty for knowing truth, so do not abandon it for the blind obidience that is being asked of you by the Mormon church. Reason is from God, since God created us. It should not contradict your faith, but rather be employed with faith to know God.

God Bless.

My dear friend Aquinas (why on earth would someone choose Aquinas for a moniker?),

Not being a Mormon, and obviously a fan of the great natural law theologian, you have not quite grasped the meaning of the restored moral relativity principle through Joseph, while in Nauvoo.

It is simple: what may be right in one situation may not be right in another. Simple, sure; but also marvelous! It is ok for the brethren to use the computer and to be online to fight angainst Satan who is taking our brothers and sisters down with him to hell through addiction to the internet and all its attendant evils. We will never become addicted, and must fight Satan whereever he is and fight him on his own turf. We cannot lose. Satan cannot win. It is destiny. Predestined, even. Aquinas knew all about that, right?

And I can tell you this: I know that chocolate cake with whipped cream is true. I have tasted of its goodness! Nothing else in your argument made sense to me, to tell you the truth. But, to be honest,, I have never understood those Catholic theologians. What were they trying to pull over on the rest of us, anyway?

Natural reason. Blah! I will take personal revelation over natural reason anyday. Humble yourself my dear brother. Don't go the way of all the lost theologians who couldn't bust their way out of a brown paper bag. "...And go round and round and round in the circle game..."

Repent or be cast in to hell. It's your "free" choice, my dear brother.

I bear you my witness again of chocolate cake and whipped cream. I know that it is true. Your brother in the apostles' harness. Elder David A. Bednar

[_David A. Bednar]

Can you say, strawman? When did I ever claim the original sentence I wrote proved anything? Please reread the most recent post of mine, as I edited it significantly after the first time I posted it. You were using one of the first responses I posted.

Can you say, Catholic theologian, spinning spider webs?

Tsk, Tsk, Tsk!

What will it take for you to be humbled?

Elder David A. Bednar

[_harmony]

Watch the typos, there, Boyd. You're going to appear less than god-like to your flock.

lol Liz, I think the content of his message has already put the nail in that coffin:

it is true that she is fat and ugly

Not something I can picture the Jesus I know ever saying about anyone... man, I can't believe these guys don't mind being on record by writting such crap... it is almost comical and I am still having some trouble believing it is actually them... I thought people in positions of authority in the Mormon church would have exercised more caution, but I guess not.

Thanks...I have a wicked sense of humor. ;)

It's obvious these guys are frauds. It's been rather amusing to watch their Zigfried and Roy act, though.

I have to admit, however, it's growing rather tiresome.

It's obvious that these guys both know quite a bit about the Church. It would be much more interesting for me to talk to the "real people behind the masks", if you will.

The farce was amusing when it started, but now it's just growing rather juvenile and disrespectful to the real Boyd K. Packer and David Bednar , in my opinion.

I think making fun of the real BKP and Bednar is entirely the point.

[_marg]

Ok Aquinas I’ll look at your edited note.

First off, what I originally wrote was this: "If God is all good, then truth leads to God, since all truth is good."

If in God, all goodness resides (thus to say of an object "A" that it is good, means that it participates in God's goodness in some way) and truth is good, then truth necessarily leads to God, since in God all goodness resides. The goodness of truth itself is found by following true things.
Thus, given these explainations, here is an argument:

1. In God all goodness resides
2. all truth is good and
3. Therefore, truth leads to God

The above is nonsense Aquinas. Your first premise is an assertion without evidence. What evidence is there for God? Your premise is not clear. Is it saying that anything good in the world must come from God? If so what are your warrants for that premise? If a premise in an argument is ambiguous and it is an assertion absent evidence, such that the truth function can not be determined, no conclusion from that premise can be relied upon.

Your second sentence makes no sense. Is it saying that all truths in the world are good..and if so again what are the grounds for that claim?
Then your conclusion doesn’t even follow from the premises. And it’s also nonsense. Truth doesn’t lead to something.

The whole argument Aquinas is simply 3 assertions absent evidence, which don’t even make sense.

If I look at your sentence explanation you seem to be saying that anything good in this case truth is good, in this world must come from God, if God is all good. And if so again it's the same problem, it's all meaningless unless you warrant your claims. And in doing so you are going to need evidence which can be objectively evaluated.

If anything, my original sentence lacked a premise that defined a term (namely, premise 1, the term "all good"). When I wrote the sentence, I didn't think I'd have to defend it. The argument (if you want to call it that) that you gave as an example is both invalid and unsound and did not represent my argument.

That I will agree with.

Let's look:
Quote:
If chocolate cake with whipped cream is all good
and truth is all good,
Threfore chocolate cake with whipped cream is truth.

Here is your arguments structure

1. C is all G
2. T is all G
3. Therefore, C is T

Lets put some nouns/adjectives in it to clarify its absurdity:

1. Chocolate Cakes are all sweet
2. Donoughts are all sweet
3. Therefore, chocolate cakes are donoughts

Clearly invalid.

Yup you are right it is invalid. I would have thought you would have appreciated I was being sarcastic. That I don’t think chocolate cake with whipped cream is truth. But it seemed to be as nonsensical as your argument.

And I pulled out my logic text book to review and the argument is presented as a categorical syllogism. It is an AAA -2. It is invalid because there is no distributed middle.




Previously: Unfortunately though, nothing has been proven. The truth of your conclusion is dependent upon the truth of the premises!

All you've done is created a proof based on a personal definition. You've defined God as "all good" You've not proven true God is all good, let alone even proven a god exists who could be all good. So your premises have not been proven true. And your conclusion can not be relied upon.

First off, this is a strawman. When did I claim that this was any sort of proof about anything? It was, at worst, a valid yet ill defined logical statement (again, I did not expect to defend it). Secondly, the soundness of a deductive argument does not depend on whether someone accepts a premise or not, but only if the premise is in fact true. You can deny the premises in this argument all you want:

When someone presents claims and then follows them with "therefore"..that word “therefore” implies a reasoned argument has been presented to arrive at the conclusion which logically follows. And if you present claims the burden of proof is on you to warrant those claims. Anyone can rationally reject those claims on the grounds you’ve not met a burden of proof to support them. Your last sentence “You (I) can deny the premises in this argument all you want” is your attempt to fallaciously shift the burden of proof away from you onto others who question and reject your claims.

(the rest of the post I addressed previously)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: I just noticed another post.

You wrote:

The original sentence was:

"If God is all good, then truth must lead to God, since all truth is good."


The statement of mine you keep trying to pawn off as a proof of the existence of God, or whatever you thought I was trying to prove. That is the strawman you are trying to knock down, I never claimed that to be any kind of proof about anything. The post I edited was the one that explained why you not accepting a premise of an argument doesn't make the argument unsound... the only reason I edited it was to add to it, nothing of substance was subtracted, plainly obvious if you read it again. For anyone else who is reading, you should know I already addressed much of what Marg put in her recent response, in the response I posted prior to it. I really don't care if you read it again or not Marg, I've given up on you here, everyone else is bored including me (yawn). If you actually read Aquinas and post a counter argument of your own, maybe I'll read it, otherwise, you aren't worth anymore of my time or threadspace.

I think some of this I already dealt with. You may not have said you were presenting proof but you presented an argument with a conclusion previously. And you used the word "therefore" before your conclusion. In the above the conclusion of your argument is "then truth must lead to God" I appreciate you aren't presenting a proof of a God, but your premise and conclusion incorporate the word God. And in doing so, if you want your argument to be looked upon as a reflection of reality rather than limited to the imaginary, you have the burden of proof to present evidence for God. Otherwise you premises and conclusion are not reliable as truth claims. I thought the Catholic church takes an agnostic position and readily acknowledge that God is unknowable? In otherwords a god belief is based on faith.

[_Yoda]

I think making fun of the real BKP and Bednar is entirely the point.

It is the point. It's just getting old fast.

[_Boyd_K_Packer]

I think making fun of the real BKP and Bednar is entirely the point.

It is the point. It's just getting old fast.

I must agree with Sister Liz on this issue. Mocking of the Lord's Anointed, yea even me, is a sin second only to denying the Holy Ghost.

I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Sincerely,

Boyd K. Packer

[_marg]

I think making fun of the real BKP and Bednar is entirely the point.

No it isn't the point.

[_smitty]

First you are not a "christian" I know Mormons like to think of themselves as such, but your not. To the "I challenge you to find even one act of deception in their lives and teachings". What about "plural marriage". Warren Jeffs is in jail now for his beliefs and you think that is ok? Old Joe said marry many and marry them young (para phrase) well that is wrong. Why did the Mormons give up polygamy? Was it to become a state? How could you move away from these teachings of you founder and breadem Young? Your posts are funny to put it nicely. I like the treat in one of your posts "I will find out who you are". So if someone disagrees with you/the church your job is to ruin their life? Is that what you are saying or what did you mean by it. I can't wait to hear this. If you need help finding it look on page one or two. You should be able to find it, if you can't I will find it for you.

Yeah, I have to admit it's pretty tough sometimes. I believe in the core Christian values, and focus on them primarily. Love, charity, compassion, forgiveness, and friendship. I try to apply the lessons from the Sermon on the Mount to everything. Amazingly, it works. I rarely teach from the manual, other than following the topic. I do it my way and nobody minds. Its pretty envigorating really, to give a lesson to a bunch of TBMs, start their wheels turning in ways they never have, and get thanked for it afterwards. It's never boring, there is 100% participation, and I never get through half of my material. I have to admit, I am a chameleon. Some would say I'm a hypocrite. I don't really give a damn what bloggernacle/RfM types think. I'm a NOM, pure and simple. Some Sundays I really have to psyche up before teaching, because the apostate part of me wants to give the entire lesson from JoD or Studies of the Book of Mormon. What motivates me is that I have a lot of very good friends in the ward, and I want to get them thinking. If I can get them thinking more, then I have accomplished my goal. If they can question things themselves, and come to a better understanding then I believe I have helped them in their lives. I focus on the good in the church, as I teach. I give them apostate milk before apostate meat. Most of them will never be prepared for the meat. None of the discussions are ever as in-depth as what we can do online, but face to face interaction is enjoyable for me as well. I hope that answers your question. I didn't want the calling but the Bishopric felt inspired to call me. Imagine that? I asked them point blank if it was an inspired calling, and I was told "Yes". (Imagine my surprize!) Lunatics in charge of the assylum I tell you..

My dear brother deseret_vulture:

What can I say? We're on to you.

What motivates me is that I have a lot of very good friends in the ward, and I want to get them thinking. If I can get them thinking more, then I have accomplished my goal. If they can question things themselves, and come to a better understanding then I believe I have helped them in their lives.

This is a satan-inspired motivation. Who would be so deceptive with their friends? Certainly not Brother Joseph. Certainly not Brother Brigham. Certainly not our dear Prophet today, Gordon B. Hinckley.

I challenge you to find even one act of deception in their lives and teachings!

If you can do it, I will eat my blinders and perhaps even drop out of the harness. But, I know you can't do it, so I can make this challenge without fear or trepidation. Prove my words.

In the harness and blinders, your fellow brother, Elder David A. Bednar

[_smitty]

Not so nice of a "stand up guy" like yourself the threaten people is it. Shame on you. I guess you are taking up the taking arms part of the Mormon history. Where are you going to do it Mountain Meadows?

My dear brother deseret_vulture:

God will not be mocked! Mark my words, my friend.

Forget the power of discernment. Why, we have the Strengthening the Members Committee. I have asked them to find out who you are. We will not suffer apostates to teach our Gospel Doctrine classes.

Though, I must admit here, that we (the 15 in the Quorum of the 12) are not too worried about who may be teaching our GD classes. We know that most in the class are sleeping anyway, even when it appears that their eyes are wide open (do you think we are all awake during our General Conferences?) You could tell them that Adam is God, and most of them will raise their hands to sustain your teachings. The correlation committee (God bless brother Daniel C. Peterson) has taken care of our old problem of lively discussions in class.

And, by the way, could you let me know who your Bishop is? I would like to have a word with him.

To Sethbag (how on earth did you come up with such a moniker?) and to the dude: It appears you will once again be allowed to participate on the church, er...I mean, the mad board. I have put in a good word for you and contacted the moderators there. They are willing to let bygones be bygones. But, remember, the tone, dear brothers, the tone. It's all in the tone. Don't forget Brother Joseph's moral relativity principle. I can't stress that enough. If they become offended by your words, they will be held accountable. You need not worry yourselves over this important principle.

Now, I want to speak a little bit about your temples. I feel impressed that some of you may have missed my message at Ricks, I mean, BYU-Idaho.

I now want to try and explain a principle that is fundamental to our knowledge about and understanding of the importance of a physical body. The principle is this: Our bodies are not our own.

Interestingly, I have heard many young people, both outside and inside of the Church, declare, “It’s my body and I can do to it what I want.” The correct doctrinal response to such a statement is quite simple. No, your body is not your own; it is a loaner from God.

Did you read carefully my message: Your body is a loaner. Remember that, my dear brothers and sisters.

Our physical bodies indeed are temples of God. Consequently, brothers and sisters, you and I must carefully consider what we take into our temple, what we put on our temple, what we do to our temple, and what we do with our temple. And we can learn a number of important lessons by comparing the Church’s temples to our physical bodies as temples.

I also refer you to your very own masturbation thread on your "telestial" forum. Don't do that to your temples. God will not be mocked.

I will visit you all again in the near future. Until then, adieu, my special ones. (One of the fifteen of the Quorum of the Twelve.)