1 Nephi 14:10-12 'There are save two churchds only'

[_dartagnan]

Charity the following is a perfect example as to why you’re too dim-witted to argue with. You keep rearranging the arguments as you keep backing yourself into your own corner.

I said McConkie didn’t publish his comments when he was an apostle; his comments which attack the Catholic Church as the whore of babylon. This remains a fact, yet you thought you caught me in an error based on your own ignorance of the publication history. Now that I have educates you on the matter, instead of feeling completely like an idiot, as you should, your confirmation bias goes into overdrive as you employ yet another logical fallacy (red herring) to reward yourself with soothing feelings.

And it was revised. Did you miss that part? You could change your mind about something. Don't you allow anyone else the same privilege? Nice history on the publicaiton of the book. But it just shows, you don't understand the meaning of the different revisions. And the way in which LDS view the statements of men, even General Authorities, which are not scripture. You are more educated that most former Mormons. But you don't seem to understand this.

What the hell are you talking about?

If you had discourse like this in real life I’d suggest you get psychological treatment. It’s like I’m talking to Sybil. This issue has nothing to do with the “understanding and meaning of different revisions.” Everyone reading this knows this.

I am not criticizing McConkie for changing his book. Any kid with minimal comprehension skills can see that, if anything, I was taking an apologetic stance and not holding his comments against him or the Church because he was not “prophet seer and revelator” at the time he made them. Subsequent revisions by the Church are irrelevant to this point of fact. But you’re too dumb to realize this and are obviously more interested in arguing about every little point, even when it is in your best interest to just sit back and shut up.

I don't know if Kevin has resigned, been excommunicated or what.

No I haven’t.

But from his posts here, and on other boards, he is not simply inactive.

I’m inactive as far as tithe paying goes, and having a traditional testimony (I believe the Book of Mormon is inspired but not history) But I still attend and take part in Church activities. I guess you could say I have downgraded myself to cultural Mormonism. The irony is that most Mormons are cultural Mormons. Meaning, they show up for social reasons not because they actually know anything about Mormonism. They know squat about LDS doctrine and Church history.

He presents himself like an apostate. He gives his history as LDS, then presents arguments directly opposing Church doctrine and leaders. That is what apostates do. If his name is still on the books, it is a technicality. Ask Kevin if you don't believe me.

Tell it to my bishop and ask him if he thinks I should be excommunicated. His name is Isaac Cain. He is constantly being told by other gospel teachers that I’m the most knowledgeable person there. He is trying to get me to hold a calling even though I told him my testimony-free status makes me unworthy.

Knowing and understanding are two different things.

True, but you have neither knowledge nor understanding. You’re an apologetic rhetoric machine, nothing more. The data doesn’t interest you.

Once a person loses the spirit, or has never had the spirit, or refuses to be tutored by the spirit, they lose their ability to understand spiritual things.

This spiritual garbage is just circular reasoning wrapped in a funnel. It is the TBM’s ever faithful scape-goat gambit. You rely on something that is psychologically explainable, and create this ridiculous paradigm of spirituality where everyone who disagrees with you is unspiritual and everyone who does must be spiritual. With this kind of brain-dead standard of logic, who needs to think?

And it is funny how you completely abandoned the discussion when I presented the scientific facts from your own alleged field of expertise.

[_Zoidberg]

I should have said unrighteous wars are condemned.

I'm pretty sure it's an unrighteous war, but you're entitled to your opinion, I suppose.

I think you will agree that sometimes that is the
only way an oppessed people can be free. I think the American Revolution is an example of that. But maybe you don't.

I don't think that the Iraq war was initiated in order to liberate any oppressed people. It did make for a good excuse, though. I'm generally anti-violence, but there are some cases on which I do not hold a firm opinion. The American Revolution may be one of them.

I think that having separate countries is generally oppressive and, hopefully, these artificial borders will soon be eliminated.

I see what you mean now. But I certainly don't think it is a correct view. How many celebrities are unmarried with children, and you don't see it harming their popularity at all. Today, according to one source on the web, about 1/4 of all white infants are born to unmarried females, and about 70% of black infants are born to unmarried females. Can't be too much of a social stigma. But I won't deny that maybe some women are still ashamed of being prenant and unmarried.

I think celebrities are different. They thrive on scandal and can get away with things normal people can't, even when it is something far more disturbing than having babies while being single. As for the rest of the population, the women who had babies out of wedlock didn't have an abortion, did they? Most abortions occur in developing countries, anyway.

Immaturity is often cited as a reason for having an abortion, so they are not ready to raise the baby; the question arises why they would not want to give it up for adoption? The stigma of giving up your child could be an explanation, I suppose. I might be completely off on this one, of course.

I appreciate your feelings about abortion. We don't have the sovereign right over another life, no matter when it occurs. In my opinion. What is different from a woman ending a pregnancy and deciding she is tired of raising a toddler and offing it?

I think Judith Jarvis Thomson said it well:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument...

I don't know if there is an officila position or not, but I know of LDS couples who have had in vitro, and the unused embryos were preserved into the future. They were not destroyed and not sold as you described. And I know LDS women who refused selective reduction and carried multiple infants to term.

I think the official position that it's only okay as long as they use the husband's sperm and the woman is not single. It might be in the CHI, I'm not quite sure. But I don't think it says anything about the fate of the embryos, which would suggest that the Church is at least not condemning the practice.

So do they intend to use the embryos preserved into the future? I think there is a fee for preserving them. If something were to happen to the couple and the fees were no longer being paid, I suppose the embryos would be up for grabs. The practice of the embryos being used in this way is just as objectionable as abortion, IMHO. You could preserve their life by paying surrogate mothers or perhaps recruiting volunteers. I suppose nobody wants to get into that because then the objecting party would have to come up with resources to make sure the embryos survive. It's much easier to pick on women who already have that embryo in their womb. I suppose the Church could just condemn in vitro altogether unless mothers are willing to carry multiple infants, but that would create lots of negative feedback from members who have difficulties conceiving, I'm sure.

[_charity]

Or is your understanding of the church of the Lamb of God symbolic, but your understanding of the church of the devil literal? It's making my head spin. I suppose you are using the spirit of discernment here, too.

Literalness is fine when things are meant to be taken literally. I don't think there is a church of the devil, with a membership roster, church building, services, etc. It is the way people behave and the choices they make. So why should there be a church of the Lamb with a membership roster, church building, etc? Its the way people behave and the choices they make.

If you read the whole chapter, you see that he's talking about future events that are to happen on Earth. I think it's pretty clear. There are obviously metaphors, but how can you deny the fact that the church of the devil and the church of the lamb of God are mentioned coexisting on Earth?

Of course, they coexist. See above.

So I think it's reasonable to conclude that they will coexist in some realm at some point in time;

I think they exist rightr now. But again, it is in the hearts of the individual, not in literal terms.

I doubt that those in the church of the devil will outnumber those in the church of the Lamb of God in the afterlife, or else you would have to retract your statement of the scarcity of sons of perdition, so I have to assume he's talking about some earthly events.

After the judgement, there isn't any church of the devil in heaven. Eveyrone will have rejected satan. Note exception here: Except for the sons of perdition. I don't know what their attitude is.

Feel free to think it's all going to be in heaven, but then retract your statement that there those "of the church of the devil" currently on Earth. Or at least explain how you've made this arbitrary distinction.

I never said that. Symbolic doesn't mean in heaven or not in heaven. May I remind you what the topic was here. Are there physical, right now churches which are the church of the devil? Such as the Catholic church, etc. I will state my position again, and then I don't think there is much to say except the "do not" or "do to" arguments. I will use red to emphasize: It is my opinion that there is currently, on earth today, right now, a symbolic Church of the Lamb and a symbolic church of the devil. Those who are chosing to follow Christ and walk in His path are of the Churchof the Lamb. It doesn't matter if their names appear on the membership rolls of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Christain Science, or Community of Christ or . . . .you get the drift. And then there are people who belong to the church of the devil, because theya re chosing to follow satan in their behaviors and they fight against the truth. And as I said before, they could be sitting in the pews next to the people who belong to the Church of the Lamb. I don't know how to better say that.

I could be wrong. But that is the way I read it. A perfectly reasonable interpretation. I have said before, one of the characteristics of these types of arguments is rigidity. You think I have to read that passage exaclty as you do because you are right.

I don't think it's a reasonable interpretation, and I'm sure a lot of people would agree with me. McConkie who you recently cited, by the way, was a big fan of literalism. He took Isaiah 4:1 to mean that polygamy will be reinstated in the Millennium. He also did say that the great and abominable church was the Cathoolic church, but you are using your gift of discernment to sort out what's right and what's not. Apparently, it's better than his. It's interesting that you want to accuse me of literalism and inability to move past concrete operational thought given that you value McConkie's interpretations.

*Sigh*. Elder McConkie did say at one time that the Catholic Church was the great you know what. And then he got told he shouldn't say that. He apologized and said he wouldn't say that any more. I suppose that puts me on the side of the Prophet (notice capital P, not small p) on this matter. I think that's a good side to be on.

But feel free to interpret this passage however you want. It is certainly your right. Just don't contradict yourself, that's all I'm asking.[

It would be nice if what I said was understood. /quote]

[_charity]

]You probably missed the part about symbolism there, too. I am beginning Old Testament see a pattern. But even then, no church was named. And we already knew that the professors of the creeds were corrupt.

I wonder what part I missed. Just because you call everyone else Satan's minions without directly pointing out names and organizations doesn't mean it's not an insult or means something other than what it looks like it means.

I am not understanding your point here. If you aren't following Christ, you are follwoing Satan. That's the two paths. Or perhaps better stated as the two directions on the same path. Now, you just have to determine what "following Christ" means. I have given a definition of what I think it means. And it is very tolerant one. You think I have some hidden list of organizations and individuals that are "Satan's minions?" Show me where I said that.

We don't send our missionaries out to teach against gay rights legislation and abortion rights, either.

But if the investigator converts, they will be expected to adopt those positions, won't they? And if they ask the mishies what the Church's positions on gay rights and abortion are, I suppose they would tell them. If the investigator is doing his/her job the way you think they should, they will find out about the Church's positions on these things pretty quickly, and will put two and two together. Teaching someone that they would be better off for joining a church that teaches non-acceptance of actively gay people and the pro-choice stance is equivalent to directly teaching them that.

Of course, the missionaries should answer any questions. But I think you are pretty naïve if you think the Church's stance on gay rights and abortion is some deep dark secret that new converts only find out once they are baptized. That is pretty funny.

Of course, a person who joins the Church is expected to follow the commandments and laws of God. I don't understand the objection to this. A person who converts joins the Church with the committment to follow Christ, wherever He leads. If the person has that committment they don't need to know ahead of time every single commandment or law. A person who picks and choses through the commandments and laws has not really converted.

To use your own example, I could probably tell you of all the advantages of being a NEA member without mentioning that they have a gay caucus. I suppose you would not feel cheated when you joined, paid the membership fees and then found out you were indirectly supporting the gay caucus.

Joining the NEA is not a good parallel. When my husband joined the NEA (oh, yes, lifetime member since 1965, but once you pay those dues, you don't keep paying) he wasn't committing his life to the NEA no matter where it lead. And yes. When he joined they didn't have a gay caucus and if he were still paying money to them every year, he would stop doing that.

[_charity]

My statements about Brigham's wives, for instance, are based on his ex-wife's book. Of course, she's just an anti-mormon liar, and charity knows better than her what went on there even though Ann Eliza was there to witness it and charity wasn't. Of course.

Have you ever known anyone who was divorced to demonize the ex-spouse? Why don't you quote any of the wives who stayed with him. Different story, but then it wouldn't support your thesis.

What about the testimonies of Joseph Smith's wives who said they've had sex with him?

A man can have sex with his wife. DUH. But, you know, I read Todd Compton's book and didn't see where any sealed wife made any such statement. Other people did. And one person said she was Joseph's actual physical child. But DNA has failed to prove that any of the claimed descendants were actually his. Pretty startling for a man who obviously was fertile. Emma had 10 children.

Or the story with Fanny Alger which was referred to as a "dirty, nasty, filthy affair"? Of course, it's easier for you to think I'm projecting.

Oliver was pretty mad at the time, all right. And where does one man's statement add up to anything more than a headline on the National Inquirer? I don't take a stand on Fanny Alger. I don't know the circumstances. You don't either. It doesn't matter. As with all of us, if we sin we can repent. Isn't that a nice thought?

And before you make a psychological assessment you should know the psychology you are basing your assessment on. In this case, you don't, so your assessment has no basis in fact.

Oh, don't I? I guess I'm making no sense when I hypothesize that indifference to sex or inability to achieve orgasm don't exactly help in the bonding between spouses department or feeling passionate, romantic love and desire for each other. If no romantic love is involved and the relationship is based more on other factors, such as mutual respect and common goals in bringing forth children, for instance, it would be much easier to accept the idea of your husband being married and eternally having sex with other women. Interestingly, Zina D. Jacobs Smith Young said: "a successful polygamous wife must regard her husband with indifference, and with no other feeling than that of reverence, for love we regard as a false sentiment; a feeling which should have no existence in polygamy."

An argument from presentism. Do you think Zina had the right or the ability to speak for every other plural wife?

I hope all married people enjoy their sex lives. And your descriptions of anything Brigham Young tought or did are so far from correct. Harmony is saying on another post, how people on this board don't m ake judgements and assessments about people. You stop doing that about the prophets, and I won't hold your feet to the fire.

How are they far from correct? As I have said, I'm basing my opinions on an account of an eye-witness. And she's not the only one who's ever said that BY had favorite wives he slept with often and wives who fell out of favor after he married someone else.

Yep. The bitter ex-wife. A really reliable source. I don't know what Brigham Young's feelings were his different wives. It might have had a little to do with the wife? Maybe some were not very much fun to be around. I have seen some women in monogamous marriages who drove their husband to staying late at the office and golfing 3 times a week. Maybe these poor guys would have had easier livee if they had a more pleasant wife to spend time with if the other one was unpleasant.

Sorry for the gender confusion. I didn't think a woman would use a disrespectful representation of the female for an avatar.

Talk about inablility to understand symbolism. It's a symbolic representation of the disrespectful treatment that women have received from society throughout history that reduces them to their reproductive systems. The LDS Church is continuing to contribute. And I think it's great art. Even Chaos from MAD liked it despite asking me to remove it. To avoid offending people like you, I'm sure.

I guess art is in the eye of the beholder. I don't find it pleasant. But it is your avatar. At least you were on notice from Chaos that there might be something about it that people could find offensive.

Okay. so you are female. And since you have a husband, ask him if he would like it if you were to hug, kiss, etc. attractive males, and then try to convince him it was non-sexual. If he would accept that, he must be very naïve.

I've hugged my male friends in front of him and I don't think he suspects any dirty intentions on my part there. I think that tabooing any physical contact or interaction with everyone of the opposite sex except your spouse after you are married is where projecting repressed sexual desires really takes place.

Hugging. Kissing? Where exactly would your husband draw the line?

But that's beyond the point because I was talking about two single people who feel attraction towards each other kissing and hugging. I guess I should have made it explicitly clear that I mean one single person with SSA hugging/kissing/complimenting another single person with SSA, not a married person. Silly me to think it's understandable it's implied.

Hugging and kissing between two people who are attracted to each other, same sex, hetero sex, is SEXUAL. Hello! I taught Human Sexualty courses, 1 per term, for 10 years.

Of course, people have prejudices. It is part of our hard wiring. A way to protect our own group and genetic pool. We have to work really hard not to think in us vs them terms. But you will find very few churches or other groups who have taught as consistently against bias than we have. Joseph Smith urged religious tolerance. (And got back none in return.) And if you want to talk about racial bias, try looking at southern churches to this day. Segregated for the most part.

The LDS Church was segregated in terms of who was allowed to go to the temple and who wasn't until fairly recently.

1979. My math says that is 28 years ago. In Portland, OR right now, there are still "black" churches. No whites. No integreation. But in every LDS ward, we have congregations based only on residential area. And that was true when all southern Baptist churches were segregated by rule. If you were black, you were not allowed to attend a white church. Who was more racist?.

It also disapproves of intermarriage. Of course, the excuse given now is that you are more likely to be compatible with someone from your own racial background *rolls eyes*. If background mattered so much, why did americans marry British converts during the time BY was threatening everyone who "mixed their seed with the seed of Cain" with death on the spot?

Too bad that most sociologists don't agree with you. Successful marraige is a pretty difficult thing to accomplish. Every little bit helps. And please don't forget that the differences in culture between American and Britain were not that great. That is such a lame argument. Divorce for non-Hispanic white couples, first marriage is about 30%. Divorce for mixed race, is closer to 50%. And this in these supposed enlightened days.

Saying "All the critics of the Book of Mormon will eventually be proven wrong, so we can be pretty open-minded" is not indicative of any bias. At all. After all, you identify yourself as an open-minded person.

I don't understand your point here.

Agency yes. Consequences of those choices, no.

And what would be the super-harmful consequences of two people being legally married if they are already living together anyway? All the excuses given about harful influence on society and children I've heard are pretty lame.

We think the living together is harmful. If it is sin, it is sin.

Do you complain that the existence of the 10 commandments violates people's beliefs? Gosh, don't steal. Now, isn't that limiting all those people who want to take your property? And how about the commandment not to committ adultery. What a put down for all those people who want to cheat on their spouses. I don't see a difference.

I see a difference. An individual is sovereign of their body and property. Their consent is required for manipulating either. In the case of infidelity, cheating is harmful because it violates the agreement between the spouses and betrays trust. I do think that consensual open marriages are ethical, however. There is a difference.

Yep. Consenusal open marriages are sin. When you get to be god you get to make the rules. But until then, well, you don't. Sorry.

Jesus spoke against homosexuality Himself.

He did? Where?

Leviticus. Jesus is the one who gave the Old Testament law to Moses. It is called "an abomination."

[_charity]

I can see you were not being as disrespectful with the "attractive" comments. But when you say attractive people ought Old Testament have a hope of finding a spouse, I think that says that unattractive people shouldn't. But it doesn't really matter. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Do you find the LDS-coined term "sweet spirit" offensive, by the way? I kind of do, actually.

I kind of don't.

You might also find it shocking that many GAs, including your favorite McConkie have mentioned a significant criterion on deciding who to marry was finding them attractive. Since the basic attitudes about what constitutes physical attractiveness tend to be roughly the same cross-culturally, it's rather natural to assume that some people have a better chance of finding a partner than others. Are you trying to deny that?

Actually, people tend to seek for parthners at their "attractiveness" level. But you have to be careful about what is "attractive" or not attractive. Money seems to make men more attractive to females when their facial features aren't exactly Brad Pitt.

Homosexual behavior is a sin. There is no double standard.

So where does homosexual behavior begin? Is saying the word "fabulous" a lot sinful homosexual behavior? It's not sinful for straight people to hug and kiss, only sexual intercourse or something short of it is sinful for them. But it is sinful for gay people to hug and kiss and okay to get kicked out of BYU for that?

Sexual behavior.

Give me a break! When I paid my tuition, I bought teacher and staff time, building rental, etc. I did not pay for the Gay Pride parade, pamphlets espousing the gay agenda. I don't know what you are thinking. What is the purpose of Portland State University? Educating students. What is the purpose of PFLAG? To support homosexuality. A portion of the dues, even if small, which go to the NEA supports the gav rights caucus. You really can't see the difference?

But by paying towards teacher and staff time, building rental, etc. you were indirectly enabling actively gay people to receive higher education, which would help them further their "gay agenda" because they would be more informed, more influential, make more money to spend on their causes.

I didn't pay their tuition. They had to do that. I bought my goods and services, they had to buy theirs. No one, gay or straight, went to school on my coat tails.

Perhaps they would even do graduate work at the school you went to, become permanent members of the professoriat and influence the climate at the school by promoting tolerance and acceptance of gay lifestyle. With you contribution. You should have gone to BYU where they kick gay people out for kissing each other. Or you should have protested against allowing gay students to go to PSU.

You don't understand economics, evidently.

If a person is not mentally capable of making a choice, they are let off the hook. But God knows how much they are responsible for. We don't.

Then why are you making a judgement about people whose light of Christ supposedly doesn't shine anymore?

I am not judging. I am stating a fact about how the light of Christ operates. How you apply it, and to whom, is your problem.

I didn't see any of your argument showing an understanding of the basis of theory on moral development. If you do know the theory and just aren't mentioning anything to do with it, I am sorry for making a wrong assumption. You are familiar with Kohlberg and Gilligan?

Considering that they teach that in Intro to Psych, it would really be a miracle if I weren't.

It seems that many religious believers are stuck in the pre-conventional stage as defined by Kohlberg because they think that external motivation is necessary in order to not rape and pillage left and right.

Very simplistic view of moral development. Was that the wiki version?

Oh yes, that's where I get all my information. What is so simplistic about it, pray tell? I've just recently watched Dawkins' documentary in which one of the religious educators he interviews expresses this precise idea. The reasoning of people in this stage is supposed to be simplistic and based on self-interest and accepting authority, but what does it have to do with my understanding of it?

Remember when Gilligan was doing her studies. And how far that came from the traditional theories of moral development at the time.

I think her input is very valuable, but it doesn't mean we should accept it as the ultimate reality.

Also, you are the one who suggested that absolute libertines have no idea how to live by a moral code, so I'm not the one here who thinks that there are groups of people who are not in possession of any moral code. Do you even remember what you yourself have said?

I didn't say that. I said who was more likley to subscribe to a moral code.

Ludwig kindly provided you a reminder of what you actually said upthread. Hopefully, that will refresh your memory.

Exactly what I said. Notice the question marks?

[_charity]

I don't think we are too far apart on the idea of the absolute abhorrence to abortion.

I think Judith Jarvis Thomson said it well:

Sounds like Judith Jarvis Thompson was talking about rape. Most women who get abortions consented to having sex. Conception is a consequence of sex. We get to chose our behaviors. We don't get to chose the consequences..

I don't know if there is an officila position or not, but I know of LDS couples who have had in vitro, and the unused embryos were preserved into the future. They were not destroyed and not sold as you described. And I know LDS women who refused selective reduction and carried multiple infants to term.

I think the official position that it's only okay as long as they use the husband's sperm and the woman is not single. It might be in the CHI, I'm not quite sure. But I don't think it says anything about the fate of the embryos, which would suggest that the Church is at least not condemning the practice. So do they intend to use the embryos preserved into the future?

Yes.

I think there is a fee for preserving them. If something were to happen to the couple and the fees were no longer being paid, I suppose the embryos would be up for grabs. The practice of the embryos being used in this way is just as objectionable as abortion, IMHO.

I absolutely agree.

You could preserve their life by paying surrogate mothers or perhaps recruiting volunteers. I suppose nobody wants to get into that because then the objecting party would have to come up with resources to make sure the embryos survive. It's much easier to pick on women who already have that embryo in their womb. I suppose the Church could just condemn in vitro altogether unless mothers are willing to carry multiple infants, but that would create lots of negative feedback from members who have difficulties conceiving, I'm sure.

I don't know what "the Church" would say. I think it is matter for individual moral choice. I don't know that many couples who had mutlitple pregancies. But all of the ones I know refused selective reduction.

[_harmony]

My point, charity, which obviously went 'way over your head, is that on this board we don't tell people what they are, what they believe, what they know. On this board, we allow people to be who they are without us telling them.

And Kevin knows. As do I. As does Liz. As do many of us here who are not your standard run-of-the-mill member. We don't forget and we don't lose any ability to understand anything, least of all our ability to understand spiritual things. You, on the other hand, show a remarkable ability to know the hearts of strangers, even though we both know only God knows that. You're overstepping your abilities, charity. Not that I'd expect anything else from you, but still... one can hope for improvement.

I guess I assumed from all the telling me what I thought and who I was that this was not only allowed, but encouraged. Okay, just to clear up the confusion. Is your instruction just for me and other TBM's, or is every poster of whatever persuasion held to the same standard?

We get into arguments all the time here because someone (and that includes all sides of the someones) tries to tell someone else what they think or believe. You can say it; heck, you can say just about anything here. But that doesn't mean someone else won't call you on it. There is no free lunch here. You have to defend everything, and the moderation is minimal. Therefore, until Kevin tells us his status, the assumption is he's a member, since that's how he started out.

And your status has not changed nor has anyone told you what you thought or who you were. You'll find different interpretations of Mormon thought here than you're used to, but that doesn't mean anyone was attacking you personally, since Mormon thought does not equal you. Try to not personalize everything. A poster can say "Mormons think thusly... " (follow the prophet, etc.) and you might think "I do not!", but the poster didn't say you did. You are the one who put yourself inside the poster's thought, since you equated Mormon thought with your own. The poster attacked the church, not you. We attack the church a lot here; however, that doesn't mean we attack you personally.

Daniel couldn't hack being unprotected for long. We'll see how long you last.

[_charity]

Charity the following is a perfect example as to why you’re too dim-witted to argue with.
And it is funny how you completely abandoned the discussion when I presented the scientific facts from your own alleged field of expertise.

If I am too dim-witted to argue with, you sure spent a lot of time in a useless exercise. But I will spare you the effort. After this post, you can consider our dialogue closed.

I know confirmation bias. Funny how it rains on both the "just and the unjust." Remember that silly little thing about how when you point 1 finger at someone, 3 are pointing back at yourself?

And you presented no facts. Only opinion and interpretation of information.

I don't know your bishop, but does he know what you believe and teach about the Book of Abraham? I am sure you must be one of the best educated members of your ward. But saying the Prophet Joseph is a fraud and he made up the Book of Abraham doesn't go very far in the ward I'm in.

[_Runtu]

But saying the Prophet Joseph is a fraud and he made up the Book of Abraham doesn't go very far in the ward I'm in.

Even if it's true?