Too ‘Provocative?’ See the Outfit One BYU Student Got So Upset About He Wrote a Letter
- Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:06pm by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
Valentine’s Day is all about love. Candies. Cards. Chocolates. The gifts that one receives on this famed day of adulation are typically pleasant. But for one Brigham Young University, Utah, student, the message she was given this past Tuesday was anything but favorable. Brittany Molina, 21, an accounting major, was in for a rude awakening when a young man approached her with a letter, then abruptly rushed away.
Rather than offering adoration, the sheet of paper chastised the young woman and encouraged her to adjust her personal style. Apparently, according to the note, Molina dresses too provocatively.
Brittany Molina (Image Credit: Facebook/Daily Mail)
“You may want to consider that what you’re wearing has a negative effect on men (and women) around you,” the note read. It continued: “Many people come to this university because they feel safe, morally as well as physically, here. They expect others to abide by the Honor Code that we all agreed on. Please consider your commitment to the Honor Code (which you agreed to) when dressing each day. Thank you.”
Here’s an image of the note:
A copy of the controversial letter (Image Credit: Facebook/Daily Mail)
Molina shared the bizarre experience on Twitter, telling her followers that she initially thought the note was a loving gesture — that is, until she read it.
“I’ll remember to dress in jeans, a sweatshirt and tennis shoes tomorrow. That way I don’t make people feel uncomfortable,” she also tweeted. See some of her other messages regarding the incident, which has gained widespread media attention:
She even sent out a picture of the apparently risque outfit she was wearing:
Daily Mail explains the cultural elements at BYU that may have led to the letter being drafted:
The college is heavily influenced by Mormonism and offers students the opportunity to not only study but to focus on their faith.
Students must follow on honor code which along with abstaining from alcohol, tobacco, coffee and swearing, asks that they follow a dress code.
BYU requires that female students don’t dress in revealing or form-fitting clothing and that skirts are knee-length or longer. Excessive piercings and ‘extreme’ hairstyles are also banned.
Earlier this year, there were reports that the university testing center at BYU’s Idaho campus had banned skinny jeans. However, the alleged ban was then later overturned — at least according to a post on BYU Idaho’s Facebook page.
Do you agree with the young man?
(H/T: Daily Mail)
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 589 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 378 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 375 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 378 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (593)
cyclops
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:56pmWould they have any problem if I show up for class wearing a thu? Loin cloth worn by the natives on the island of Yap…………..LOL!!!
What is so provocative about her attire? I have no problem with private schools, setting their own rules and regulations but there is also a realm called “common sense.” I can see a problem if her breast is hanging out like some of the outfits worn by girls these days, but relax you “the writer of the note.” You have a computer science test in an hour……..LOL!!!!!!
Report Post »JohnnyMidknight
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:05pmI think the note was sent with a sense of sarcasm.
Report Post »Itsjusttim
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:13pmYou should be told that dressing “moderately” means to dress moderately “In spirit”, and it means to come up to the next level with your spirit exposed. It has nothing to do with clothes, although clothes has it’s health benefactors. And for a “Man” to keep his women “Covered” is what I’m doing by telling you these things, in that I’m keeping you covered. And as in the Bible for me to gird another‘s loins ’Like a giant spirit” would be as if I‘m under the spirit girding the spirit’s loins, like girders on a building.
Report Post »ConservativeCanucklehead
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:20pmReligious extremists of EVERY stripe are inclined toward dictatorial totalitarianism.
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:28pmThis was not BYU that gave her the note, it was a fellow student.
The young man is misguided, no doubt, but the university is not to blame.
Report Post »FreedomPurveyor
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:30pmThe kid is perfectly within his rights to express how he feels about her attire. His overall message was simply “please remember the honor code, thank you.” How did that make news?
For those of you who are wondering what he sees wrong with her outfit, I suspect it is the low cut neck and the dress above the knees (combining form fitting pants with a skirt above the knees is two ‘wrongs’ not making a right).
The only possible reason for this to be in the news is that it helps advance the media‘s narrative that religious bigots are attacking women’s rights. It is a pathetic strategy to rile up the liberal feminist base, so they show up to vote in November. Expect more absurd “news” stories like this to continue popping up.
Report Post »TXPilot
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 3:49pmSounds like a nerd, who was trying to get a date with her, and had no real idea how to really go about it.
Rodster
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 3:52pmI would have NO problem if one of her breast was hanging out. :-D
Report Post »THEUNKNOWNPATRIOT
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 4:02pmI like to wear a Speedo so I can tan my cheeks :P
Report Post »SR1911man
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 4:06pmThe whole reason this is news is because Romney is running for president. Any “weird, socially abnormal” story that could help disconnect the American people from Romney and his religion is going to be headline news for the liberal media. Think about it. Why the heck is this such a booming story? I’ve seen it on almost every news outlet today. It should not be a headliner. So you have to ask yourself, “why is it a headliner?” I think you’ll be seeing a lot of stories that paint Mormons as weird and abnormal the rest of this year. Sly move, liberal media, but I see what you did there.
Report Post »Todd P
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 4:39pmIf Mitt Romney were an Episcopalian, Lutheran, Prebyterian, Baptist, or even Catholic – this would not be in the “news”. This is the MSM’s lame attempt to paint Mormons as too weird for the White House. We will see a lot more of this crap in the months ahead. I am still voting for ROMNEY!
ROMNEY / RUBIO 2012
Report Post »Baddoggy
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 4:44pmDoesnt turn me on…But I take a half of a Viagra a day to keep from peeing on my shoes…
Report Post »Livia
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:00pmIf she was dressed like the last picture, I don’t see anything wrong with it. She’s not showing her chest, her belly button and she has on tights. She is well covered, and I am an old grumpy woman who sees half nekkid girls around town all the time. They do look trashy, this girl doesn’t. The note writer seriously needs to get over himself!
Report Post »C. Schwehr
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:03pmITSJUSTTIM: I’ve seen you on here for a few days now with your biblical babbling. You make no sense and really just take up space on the forum…
Report Post »Bgriffitts
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:09pmThe note was from some sheltered kid that she knew who didn’t have the guts to confront her with anything but a note with horrible hand writing. The kid doesn’t represent the Church or the school in any way, shape, or form. I’m a BYU grad and active member of the LDS Church, and I find nothing wrong with what she is wearing. It was just some kid who felt that his time was better spent criticizing someone than getting good use out of his tuition money and studying.
Report Post »C. Schwehr
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:11pmFREEDOMPURVEYOR: WHAT LOW CUT DRESS DID YOU SEE? I saw a lovely woman who was extremely modestly dressed…I suppose you would expect that she cover up every bit of skin like a burka? This is one of the things about religion that I do dislike…the shaming of women for being women!
Report Post »The child who insulted this woman by addressing her modest dress style should be made to apologize to this woman for such behavior!
aerorepairo
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:17pmSo the Kid passed a note along and ran away as fast as he could. . . . Sounds like he is a Yellow Belly Liberal with a pill between his legs.
Report Post »Porkchop_sw
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:30pm@Rodster
Report Post »I’m with you man!
000degrees
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:35pmThanks Doggy, I just peed a little laughing at that one
Report Post »johnannegalt
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:45pmYou know, I wouldn’t be surprised if after a quick check of her Facebook page it turns out she typically wears much more scandalous clothing. Perhaps he was planning to give her this note for a while, and it turned out it was COLD on Valentine‘s Day so she’s not “letting it all hang out” so to speak.
Yep, just Google image’d her, and I saw a few pics of her in pretty lowcut v-necks, a pic of her and her fellow cheerleaders at her old high school.. right on, kid! :D
Report Post »3monkeysmomma
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:51pmI attended the University of North Florida whose campus is located just a few minutes from the ocean. During the summer, we were all practically naked, wearing our swimsuits to class and very little over them. Even the professors wore flip flops and shorts.
Of course, I would never dress that way now, but between being a skinny, twenty-something, the fact it HOT in Florida in the summer and that every else dressed that way, it didn’t seem like a big deal and of couse nobody ever said anything to me.
I really don‘t understand what’s wrong with this dude. She‘s a pretty girl and he’s probably frustrated because he knows she’d never give him the time of day.
Report Post »Susie
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 6:12pmThe only thing I can see of her attire which violates the code is that her dress length is
Report Post »above her knees.
Now if he had a complaint he should have been more specific, because her over-all look is rather more little-girlish than sexy womanish.
So what exactly is his beef, and why did he pick such a cowardly method of delivering it ?
FreedomPurveyor
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 6:32pm“FREEDOMPURVEYOR: WHAT LOW CUT DRESS DID YOU SEE? …I suppose you would expect that she cover up every bit of skin like a burka?”
It has nothing to do with what I expect. I couldn’t care less what she wears. I was merely postulating what the kid who wrote the letter might see. Besides, like JOHNANNEGALT pointed out, he probably wrote it because of what he’d seen on other days.
Report Post »ki2cool22
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 6:47pmRomney care, the so called mandate. It is a tax incentive, meaning that Romney introduced a new tax to Massachusetts and those that have insurance are exempt form paying this new tax. Romney wanted to give a tax- brake to those that purchased health insurance, but was left with the not as conservative choice of adding the new tax but was still a conservative thing to do because of the law that requires hospitals to accept everyone that is in need of emergency care and then reimbursed by the state. This law was actually signed by Reagan in 1986 (EMTALA applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S). Romney, facing a 2 billion dollar deficit had to stop this unpaid for spending (Uncompensated Care Pool) so in 2006, passed the law that added a new tax and those with insurance were exempt from it. So the smart thing to do was to just get insurance, and those that did not want to be exempt pay the tax. Those that cant afford it, meaning those that make under 150% of the states poverty level, can file for assistance but most of those people are covered anyway (with Medicare). So the new tax went towards paying for those that show up at the emergency room without insurance that have the ability to pay for it but want a free ride. go romney 2012
Report Post »1776Federalist
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 7:12pmTo JOHNANNEGALT: Seriously? I also Googled her and the Cheerleader pics are standard MODEST outfits with a modest V neck (not at all low cut), and all other pics of her are modest. BYU does not require women to dress in neck to toe clothing to attend there. I was there way back in the 70′s. The note writer was probably from a very strict, non-mainstream, intolerant home that does not reflect the true LDS spirit. My daughter has in-laws like that. Her modest cheerleader outfits that she wore in high school were supposedly immoral in their eyes, but their own daughters crotch hugging spandex shorts and tank top for the volleyball team were okay. Whatever. If you don’t like what you see, look the other way.
Report Post »toddgibbs
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 7:19pmI think it MUST be Rick Santorum’s fault…. somehow…?
Report Post »CaliforniaD
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 8:08pmThe note writer was referring to her typical attire, not what she was wearing at the time.
Report Post »FranciscoDAnconia
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 9:44pmI did not go to BYU but half of my family did. There is nothing immodest about what this girl is wearing. Would a girl approach a guy on valentines day that has a five o clock shadow and leave him a little note about how he needs to shave? (At BYU you must shave your face if you are a guy). Lets just call it as it is. The guy was a freak and couldn’t control his own thoughts. That guy was looking for some thing immodest which means he was examining her body looking for the slightest sign that some thing might be sexual. I think this guy is a complete freak and does not represent most people at BYU let alone mormons.
Report Post »flipp457
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 10:47pmwhat a whore… i’d still hit it though with my mandingo
Report Post »how is this news again blazers??
Skptk
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 11:40pmWe have no idea if this picture represents the attire the other student asked her to reconsider.
Report Post »She may have gone home and changed before taking this picture to offer as “evidence”.
The headline of this story may be misleading, but the word “provocative” certainly got a lot of us looking.
Lamarr01
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 3:33amThis poor, young lady must be suffering from all this attention. She may have been showing a hint of thigh. Don’t blame the boy that passed the note. The Mormons are oversexed. Brigham Young had 55 wives.
Report Post »drago
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 6:52amOh brother, now the Romneybots are out, or is it actuaclly just leftwingers trying to convince us that Romney is the repub messiah. I guess there truelly is no help for this Nation now……..
Report Post »MYHEROISRON
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 7:01amShe’s cute! Hell, I wanna see more of her and, I wanna beat the hell out of the jealous SOB who wrote the note! Why is this a story? Huh …?
Report Post »Armed Patriot
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 8:07amA very attractive young lady, wearing an attractive outfit. Looking cute is sowehow wrong. She is covered completely from toe to chest. I guess this guy must have gor a woody and felt it was her fault and displaced his “guilt” as being her fault. Grow up young man and go out to the wood shed. Get over it.
Report Post »glassbeadlady
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 12:00pmBYU has a very serious code of honor and the students are expected to live by it. The dress code is strict for a reason. They are there for a frist class education, not to mess around. Utah resident.
Report Post »ccfonten
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 12:50pmThis guy is either one very sexually repressed young man or he is very dangerous.
Report Post »Would he rather her dress in a burka??
Pucci
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 2:48pmThe dress did not go down to her knees, Rules are rules. That being said, I think the dress would look good over her head.
Report Post »nella111
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 3:55pmThe writer of the NOTE handed her a NOTE. SHE is the one who made it public. If he has a problem with the way she is dressing, then it is his problem, but maybe he thought others might feel the same, and wanted her to be aware of her influence. Evidently, she had no clue that she was dressing inappropriately. Modesty and decorum is certainly out of style in today’s world.
Report Post »Physicist_In_Training
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 5:02pm@ JohanneGalt, FreedomPurveyor –
Sorry but you have no evidence whatsoever, only unsupported speculation, that the letter writer was referring to this young woman’s usual attire.
As to her “risque” high school cheerleading uniform….you should do a google search for “BYU Cheerleaders” and see what comes up. See how much those uniforms jibe with the school honor code, eh?
Report Post »ASimpleGenius
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 11:13pm@CYCLOPS I’ve lived on Yap. If you were wearing a thu…. hahaha! I don’t think that would turn anyone on! However, it is difficult to draw a line on what fits into the defined Honor Code. Is he referring to the leggings? Does he think her top is cut too low? Maybe he should just keep his nose in his books and stop worrying about other people…
Report Post »pavepaws
Posted on February 19, 2012 at 6:26amIn her case, less is better.
Report Post »JayneCobb
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:53pmOddly, something similar like this happened to me when I worked there years ago.
I was waiting in the library for a class later that evening and reading/flipping through Newsweek and US News mags to pass the time. Apparently, some guy thought I was looking for pictures of scantily-clad women (in US News and World Report?!?) to ogle them so he scribbled a note to that effect, handed it to me and left. I wish I had kept that letter. It was hilarious! This was during the Clinton presidency, so Madeline Albright was something to ‘ogle.’
The point of this, is that every group has those that think they alone are there to “steady the ark.“ A large enough population will eventually have its ”unique” individuals.
Getting back to the topic, her attire is perfectly OK. This idiot that ignored a chance to get to know her as a person with a real Valentine has too much time on his hands and will likely be alone for a while.
Report Post »Macrobat
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:12pmYou misspelled “lotion” as “time” on his hands.
Report Post »thop1960
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:55pm@JayneCobb
First off, love your screen name and avatar. I’m a big fan of Firefly, great show and ahead of it’s time. Anyway, It’s silly to give someone a note expressing how you feel. Having said that, I don’t really have a problem with it either. He has a right to disprove of her attire and let her know about it. The only problem here is that people are making a big deal over it. BYU has rules that every student agrees to follow. If the school has not come to her and asked her to dress more appropriately, then if I were her, I would not worry about what anyone else says. She can either agree to do it or go to a different university, simple as that. What a concept, freedom to choose…
Report Post »ShyLow
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 3:55pmI’m not a big fan of the pregnant-prostitute look…it came into style at the start of the interacial revolution in the late 80‘s early 90’s…neither hot or cold,but luke warm
Report Post »Todd P
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 4:49pm@ MACROBAT:
The word “lotion” does not appear in JAYNECOBB’s post, and “time” is spelled correctly.
@ SHYLOW:
Pregnant prostitute? Really?!
You guys need to adjust your glasses. Or just lay off the drugs, man!
Report Post »000degrees
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:38pmAhhhhh, Todd…….nevermind.
Report Post »RLTW
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 10:15pmThe note was given because this young man/boy lacks self- control… But I will say this, I fly through Salt Lake City often and without question there is something in the water there that creates beautiful women. I recently was on a flight with the BYU girls basketball team, and my first thought was that many of them could be super models. Conservative dress or not they’re beautiful women.
Report Post »loveoursoldiers
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:51pmI knew it. Women are offending men by the way they dress. Oh.. now you can’t wear what you want because some horny nut job who can get laid gets excited? wow PC run amuck!
This is how we get to burqas. The govt will say.. like they are saying about this contraception mandate.. they will say we have to be mindful of other’s and cannot offend others or trample their rights to not be offended at school etc.. Muslims are offended by the way women dress so women will need to cover up when they are in govt funded places.
It will start with govt places but will go to all other places when they get rid of private schools.. or mandate those places to conform.
This is just the beginning of Islamic takeover under the guise of all these riciduculous.. seemingly unrelated… protestations. It is a masterful set-up. mastermind = ?Ayers or Jarrett
Report Post »Obama is the one who facititates the plan. Almost perfection. They have just about everything covered.
My prediction of what is next.
The remaining obstacle is conservative media. Fox has already turned because of ? pressure/threats. So now their targets must be GBTV, Rush, Hannity, Levin. I‘m thinking all this Anonymous stuff is meant to throw us off when suddenly we can’t get these shows. Oh.. it must be a virus affecting all the conservative talk shows.or Anonymous hacking these people.
So TV is already taken care of.. the rest is easy and I am sure they are getting ready to cut us off from the only truth there is.
JRook
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 3:44pmOk you really have to wait at least to diner before chugin the bottle of Ripple. The school is BYU, It is their conservative dress code and an ultra christian conservative nut job that thinks her clothes are revealing. You are correct in one sense that there are individuals like this conservative control freak who would move us towards a Christian theocracy. Which is certainly no better than any others.
Report Post »FreedomPurveyor
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 4:02pmThis kid isn’t forcing anything on anyone. He exercised his 1st amendment right to express his opinion, and nothing more. He didn’t report her to the school, he didn’t get a teacher to tell her to change, he didn’t even talk to her face. He just wrote a note.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 4:10pm@JRook
The Mormons and their morality police are only a few stones away from Saudi Arabia’s version.
Who would of thought that a religion, founded by a man who wanted a very open marriage, will have so many hang ups about sex?
Report Post »FreedomPurveyor
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:02pm“The Mormons and their morality police are only a few stones away from Saudi Arabia’s version.”
There is a significant difference between a full head-to-toe body covering that is mandatory by law and suggesting that women dress in a non-provocative fashion.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:23pm“There is a significant difference between a full head-to-toe body covering that is mandatory by law and suggesting that women dress in a non-provocative fashion.”
Those that force women to dress in Burka’s will give the same answer, that they are demanding women dress in a non-provocative fashion. BYU is no different than the taleban.
Report Post »FreedomPurveyor
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 6:33pm“Those that force women to dress in Burka’s will give the same answer, that they are demanding women dress in a non-provocative fashion. BYU is no different than the taleban.”
If they were demanding it, this story wouldn’t exist, because they would have forced her to wear something less provocative.
Report Post »Jenny Lind
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 7:34pmFunny how the terrible Mormans have been trying to dress modestly in a totally immodest world and it makes people come up with Muslims as the equation. Sorry, it doesn’t wash. Modesty has nothing to do with control, but it does have a lot to do with self-respect. Most women I know who value themselves in God’s eyes are not to interested in going half naked. They value their bodies as sacred, their lives as precious, and it shines a light around them. I’d rather have been noticed for my love of Christ and modesty, than living the way many do today-doing their own thing, with no thought of of their relationship with God. I seem to recall a scripture about being in the world, but not of it. That is what BYU stands for in this. Just because something is OK in the world, doesn‘t mean it’s OK with God. I still can‘t find the scripture where He has changed the rules to conform to today’s ideas of morality.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 7:54pmFunny how the terrible Mormans have been trying to dress modestly in a totally immodest world and it makes people come up with Muslims as the equation. Sorry, it doesn’t wash.
__________________
Let’s test this theory
Founder of islamm Mohammad had multiple wives…Founder of Mormonism Joey Smith had multiple wives (over 30 for Joey)
Underage bride, check for both of them.
Religion’s views on women, both want them covered up, barefoot and prego.
Killed American civilians on 9/11, Muslims in 2001, Mormons in 1857 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre_and_Mormon_public_relations)
Sorry, your theory fails. The Mormons and Muslims are more alike than Glenn Becky has told you.
Report Post »FreedomPurveyor
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 8:06pmHow are the comparisons you made relevant in any way to modern Mormons, Encinom?
Report Post »encinom
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 8:53pmFreedomPurveyor
Report Post »Posted on February 17, 2012 at 8:06pm
How are the comparisons you made relevant in any way to modern Mormons, Encinom?
___________________________
BYU is named after the name that either directly order and otherwise allowed the death of US civilians on 9/11. Beckerheads love to use the past against American Muslims, how is that relavant?
FreedomPurveyor
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 9:28pm“BYU is named after the name that either directly order and otherwise allowed the death of US civilians on 9/11. Beckerheads love to use the past against American Muslims, how is that relavant?”
We aren’t discussing what “Beckerheads” say about Muslims. If you have to justify your argument by comparing it to a bad argument, what does it say about your own?
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 11:09pmEncinom;
“Killed American civilians on 9/11, Muslims in 2001, Mormons in 1857 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre_and_Mormon_public_relations”
Good grief. How in the world did a post on a girl’s modest “immodesty” turn into Mormons killing others? In regards to the moutain Meadow Massacre, read the second paragraph in the wiki post:
“Beginning in the late mid-to-late-20th century, the LDS Church has made efforts to reconcile with the descendants of John D. Lee, who was executed for his role in the massacre (reinstating him posthumously to full fellowship in the church), as well as with the descendants of the slain Baker–Fancher party”
John D. Lee was executed for his part in the massacre. What Islamic country executed a terrorist against the West?
Get real, sir. And if you want to pivote what a small group of Mormons did as reflective to what mormons believe, would you like me to show you a list of mainstream Christians who have killed?
Report Post »encinom
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 12:13am@Darren
John D. Lee was a patsy quickly executed to protect Brigham Young and others in LDS leadership. LDS covered up the murders and quickly hide the bodies. Do a little more research.
Report Post »scruffycat
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 6:49amI agree totally with the “horney nutjob” comment. Its just like stupid Muslims that bag their women up because their penises start pitching an embarassing tent under their sandrobes and they have to walk around with their loins pointing the way across the vast and shifting desert sands. They should just lay their penises on a table and smash them with a brick until the vascular system is too shreaded to form an erection and then the actual problem would be solved instead of trying to blame some other party because of the clothes they wear or some other absurd imagination.
Report Post »FreedomPurveyor
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 9:21am“John D. Lee was a patsy quickly executed to protect Brigham Young and others in LDS leadership. LDS covered up the murders and quickly hide the bodies. Do a little more research.”
Naturally. I’m sure Brigham Young was actually there. He rode in with a machete and just started screaming and chopping heads off.
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 8:11pmEncinom;
“John D. Lee was a patsy quickly executed to protect Brigham Young and others in LDS leadership. LDS covered up the murders and quickly hide the bodies. Do a little more research.”
Somehow I doubt that your “research” would be “superior” to mine. The wretched evil act of the massacre at Mountain Meadows ocurred in 1857 and John D. Lee was executed in 1974. How you conclude he was executed “quickly” is beyond me. When the Mormonsd with the Piautes, who were also threatened as well as haven some horses stolen by the Fancher Party, went to Mountain Meadow, James Haslam was sent to ride 250 miles from Cedar City to Salt Lake City in order to inquire of President Brigham Young as what to do with the Fancher Party. Haslam carried a note penned by Young which read, “In regard to the emigration trains passing through our settlements, we must not interfere with them. until they are first notified to keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect will do as they please but you should try to preserve good feelings with them.” He you have diret counsel from Brigham Young to leave the Fancher Party alone and to allow the Indians to deal wit them as they deem fit. This is hardly the sign of a murderer. The only thing people cling to to connect Young is that Johnd D. Lee swore until he was executed that he was carrying out Young’s bidding. That’s it. There’s nothing else to it.
Report Post »riseandshine
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:47pmThis is hardly newsworthy.
Report Post »charlieb58
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:53pmThank You!
Report Post »GeorgieBaby
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:14pmAgreed. The Blaze seems focused on BYU issues a lot lately.
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:30pmGlenn is accused of being soft on ‘Mormons” for not mentioning anything bad about Romney, then is accused of mentioning “Mormons” too much when a story about them is posted.
There is no pleasing some people.
Report Post »ZaphodsPlanet
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:37pmI agree…. but isn’t this site overseen by someone who used to be at Huffpo? A decision I wouldn’t agree with Glenn about. And OMG….. she’s a pretty girl. She’s not dressing out of line by the pictures shown. She looks nice while still classy IMO.
Anyway, we can’t skip out on any opportunity to bash something or anything that might be considered pro-conservative or pro-Christian-ish. That’s why this article is on this site.
Report Post »ohbrutha
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:55pmAmen. Love Glenn and The Blaze, but why would you run such a non-story. I might expect this from a local, small-town rag, but The Blaze should be embarrassed. Next up “4th Grader Passes ‘Will You Go With Me’ Note in Class.”
Report Post »GeorgieBaby
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 3:34pm@BROTHER_ED – Are you kidding me? This story is not news. It’s about a young student at a college looking for 15 minutes of fame, some idiot that walks around campus with a pre-written note to give to girls, or some Blaze writer looking for hot chicks on Twitter and finding this girl’s tweet. Stupid stuff happens at every college campus in the country everyday, and The Blaze has been picking up stupid BYU stories at about a rate of one per week.
If this were any college other than BYU, I doubt it would be picked up. It is becuase it is BYU, a Mormon school, that it is picked up. Unless you are a part of a religious minority in this country that is heavily persecuted, you have no idea of the level of hatred and vitriol that Mormons have to deal with on a daily basis from media sources.
Report Post »TheSurrealTruth
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 4:16pmHow did this make news? The guy is overbearing, sure, but the girl seems like a spoiled brat to overreact like she has. The Blaze should be ashamed for helping to bully some unknown guy (who, to be fair, does seem pretty extreme) at the behest of some homecoming queen upset over her wounded pride. I know that’s harsh, but. . .I mean. . .really? THIS ISN’T NEWS.
Report Post »The citizen who cares
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 4:51pmI’ll add to your comment: nothing to see here, move along. (really, move along)
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:41pmTheSurrealTruth-
It‘s always the female’s fault, isn’t it. Maybe she should have wore a dress that covers her ankles. She shared a funny story on Twitter. That doesn’t mean shes seeking fame…
Report Post »TheSurrealTruth
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 7:22pm@Nick84: Don’t be ridiculous. Don’t try to spin my comment into something sexist. I respect women the same as men. I’d think it was just as bratty if the roles were reversed. Someone said something to her (in a manner of speaking) that she didn’t like she whined about it to her friends and blew it way out of proportion. Why not toss the note and leave it at that? Or talk to the guy directly to sort things out? Why put it out on the internet where millions will see it? One reason: Attention. This isn’t a female problem, it’s a youth problem. My generation is so full of itself today, so quick to mock and laugh at people because they’re different from us. So unwilling to understand.
The guy IS in the wrong as well. He shouldn’t have said anything. If the school didn’t say anything to her, why should he? But he did what he felt was right. She should respect as much, realize that no one’s opinion can ever diminish who she is as a person, and move on. I just think she’s trying to play victim. The only thing she is “victim” to is a collision of differing opinions. Sorry if you think that’s sexist.
Report Post »WithOutGodWePerishAsARepublic
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:44pmYou kiddin me right ??? I went to BYU… !!! I want to know who was the person that gave her the note…I can most certainly assure you that person may have a few issues (skeletons in their closet) themselves !!! I am sure the person or student has a few things that may be against the BYU honor code …!! Just saying !!! Check their laptop !!!!
Report Post »YellowFin
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:55pmIf her picture shows what she was wearing at the time, I do not consider that risqué. A little sloppy, but not risqué.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:05pmIt was probably a Muslim .. wanting her to wear a burka … not a Mormon at all.
Report Post »beckwasfox
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 4:20pmDo Mormons force women to wear differnt colored burkas than Muslim women?
Report Post »Kae Mechiso
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:44pmThis boy must be from the Warren Jeffs FLDS church. They like their women to dress in 1830s style clothes with high neck ankle length dresses with long sleeves.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:13pmYea, those are the “crazy” Mormons. They don’t stick to good solid theology like the golden plates and seer stones. Steer clear of them!
Report Post »Psytoxic
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:27pmGonzo, don’t forget about the prophet that had a conversation with a bush that was on fire. And then it wrote a bunch of rules on some stone.
Report Post »P8riot
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:46pmGonzo also forgot about those crazy beliefs about a guy who literally walked on water and brought dead people back to life… and about some guy who split the red sea who came after the guy who built a boat that could hold every species of animal life…
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 4:04pmGonzo;
I like the Old Testament story about the talking donkey myself.
Report Post »martinez012577
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 4:49pmI dont think Moses or Jesus have been proven to be false prophets yet. Old Joe has been though.
Report Post »marvel
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:02pmGonzo also forgot about the story in Numbers about a man who got stoned for picking up sticks on the Sabbath.
Or the strange story in Acts of Ananias and Sapphira (his wife) who were struck dead by God for holding back some of their possessions instead of turning them over to the Church to be distributed to each according to their needs.
God’s word on plates of metal, delivered by an angel to a young man who claimed to be a prophet of God seems quite normal if the Bible is our standard.
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:10pmMartinez;
“I dont think Moses or Jesus have been proven to be false prophets yet. Old Joe has been though.”
while of course there’s nothing false about Jesus pre-mortasl, mortal or post-mortal but didn’t Moses use “magic” to change aserpent into a snake and at that point te snake represented Satan (sepent inthe Garden of Eden)? Didn’t he kill an Egyptian just doing his job?
(Please note my sarcasm but that I did so to make a small point)
Report Post »martinez012577
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 7:12pm@darren
There are other faiths that can account for the things in the Bible. No so much in the BOM. If Jesus came to the Americas, why did the American Indians not have faith or even know who Jesus was? His impact on the world changed everything for the middle east, Europe and Asia. Then he comes to Central America has no large impact on the population?
Oh yeah, and still no…
Wheels
Iron forges
metal swords
grapes
silk
horses
elephants
wheat
barley
large cities
roads
large battlegrounds
None of these things have been found from the time period from the BOM. Oh and the DNA overwhelming shows the origin of the central American indians came from north east Asia.
Facts are hard to deal with.
Report Post »BrayDeck
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 7:30pmHey Martinez, have you ever heard of the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl? The white, bearded creator God who was the head of the Aztec Priesthood? Many Aztecs believed the conquistador Cortez to be Quetzalcoatl returned. A white bearded God who created the Earth and is the head of the priesthood… now who does that sound like? Remember, Jesus visited many of his sheep that are not of the fold of the Jews:
John 10:16: And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
Report Post »P8riot
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 7:46pm@MARTINEZ012577 – You obviously have never read the Book of Mormon to ask such questions. I hesitate to even answer your question as it will only go over your head since you don’t ask in sincerity… but in a nutshell, after the primary followers of Christ fell into wickedness, they were decimated in a massive war towards the end of the Book of Mormon. As for your assumption that there are no stories of Christ in Central America – do you even know anything about what happened when the Conquistadors came there and how the people were awaiting the return of a “white God”? Finally, as for your assumption that there were no horses, etc… take a look at the Loltun Caves and the horse bones found there at the same level as the Mayan artifacts.
But this is all getting silly, honestly, you either believe that there is continued revelation from God or not. I personally believe that he still speaks to man through a living Prophet. However, you are free to believe as you wish, just as people didn’t believe Moses, Abraham, Jacob, etc. were prophets in their day… hey, you might be fulfilling a prophecy youself – “No prophet is aaccepted in his own country.” – who said that?
Report Post »martinez012577
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 8:05pm@bray
So make up a religion to fit that verse. Remember at the time of Jesus, Jesus and the apostles didnt really preach to any other than Jews. It wasnt until Saul/Paul started to bring them into the fold that gentiles were preached to. Was Paul not speaking with the authority of Jesus Christ?
So to recap, you take one verse and “ASSUME” that is the verse back up the fact that Jesus Christ came to Central America?
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 9:38pm@LEFTFIGHTER
I congratulate you on the research you’ve done to disprove Mormonism. Have you have done as much research on the other denominations? Or is this just a Mormon thing?
If we are leading people astray with false doctrine, maybe you can enlighten us on true doctrine.
Use statements like “I believe…“ not like ”At least I don’t believe…”, or “You people believe…”
Don’t say what we believe is irrational, tell me what you believe.
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 11:47pmMartinez;
Here comes the “true Christian” demanding..acrcheology. Nice. This goes to show what I said to you in your own thread below on this page. That Evangelicals do very little to no thinking when they attack Mormons. So, what archeological evidence is there that King David ruled Jeruselem? What about the Hebrews wandering around in the wilderness for fourty years? This may seem naive, but despite the utter lack of *any* such archeological evidence, I believe King David ruled Jeruselem and that the Hebrews wandered the wilderness for fourty years after they left Egypt simply because the bible says so and the Holy Spirit testifies to me that that book is the true word fo God. How about you?
You also are stuck in the way past regarding the archeological discoveries which have been made regarding the ancient Indians’ theology and technology. There has been discoveries made of metal. This is both in products and linguistic words referring to “metal”. Steel is very limited in its mentioning and so it is very easy to conclude that its use was limited and lost. elephants are very much part of America’s past as you may have heard of the wolly mammoth. There have been elephantine drawings discovered in Meso America as well. Same for wheels. And ‘wheels“ in mentioned only once in the Book of mormon when citing Isaiah 5 so there is no need to ”prove” wheel technonlogy ancient America though there definitely was.
(con’t)
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 11:56pm(con’t);
P8triot nails the horse issue. There have been horse remains discovered in Meso America. Both P8riot and “Bray” mention the white bearded God. That was for the Aztecs. Fr the Mayans you may want to look into the ruins of Tulum. There was discovered the ‘descending god”. That’s the god who came down on the behalf of man. This descending god was the “bread of life” and the “god of all the gods” but who also had a father. There’s a third god with no image in his place next to these previous two gods. This is interesting since in Mormon theology the Father and the Son have flesh and bone but not the Holy Spirit. The discovery of Tulm coincides with great cities discovered in Meso America (“large cities” iwas one of your citations of lack of evidence, correct?) and that these cities were onstructed of cement. Joseph Smith was ridiculed by the high and mighty intellects of his day since “everybody knew” the ancient Americans did not use cement.
Among these cities are roads found to connect them in various places.
But I want ot assure you that i do not need man’s science to know that the Book of mormon is the true word of God and neither do you. I know it is God’s true word because the Hoyl Spirit has testified its truth to me many times in my life. This is how you too can know that it is true.
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 12:03amMartinez;
“Oh and the DNA overwhelming shows the origin of the central American indians came from north east Asia.”
Yes, and so does the story of the Jaredites, the first settlers in the Book of Mormon story. You also need to know of Haplogroup X. This is a genetic marker unique to certain tribes in the Northeast United States as well as to Europe and the Middle East, specifically to Isreal. There’s virtually no known Asian group with Haplogroup X. The Book of Mormon also speaks of many migrations northwards from the Nephite lands. recently there have been archeological evidence of Mayans settling in Georgia, US. This has been supported with DNA testing which show Mayan genetic markers with Indians in that area today.
But, again, neither you nor I need man‘s science to know that the Book of Mormon is God’s true word, that Joseph Smith was God’s true prophet, and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is God’s true and restored church on earth today. and neither do you.
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 3:35pm@brother_ed
Yep, I have a book right next to my door for any poor Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses that happen by, showing exactly the cult‘s belief and the spot in the Bible where it’s proven that they’re wrong.
You wouldn’t want to come by my door on you little mountain bike and white shirt and tie.
Then again, there *are* the Scientologists that I should research, but don;t feel I need to. ALl I have to do is show a YouTube video of the cackling, manic mess that is Tom Cruise.
That guy needs meds.
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 8:14pmLeftLover;
“Yep, I have a book right next to my door for any poor Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses that happen by, showing exactly the cult‘s belief and the spot in the Bible where it’s proven that they’re wrong.
You wouldn’t want to come by my door on you little mountain bike and white shirt and tie.
Then again, there *are* the Scientologists that I should research, but don;t feel I need to. ALl I have to do is show a YouTube video of the cackling, manic mess that is Tom Cruise.
That guy needs meds.”
Well, it looks like you got everything covered. Good luck with all that.
Report Post »Tombstone
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:43pmOr….. consider the possibility that the entire incident is a fake and it’s meant to stir up controversy in attempt to cast religious organizations as being repressive against women.
Report Post »Next thing you’re likely to see is a follow-up story citing that just minutes before this incident, she had gone to the university clinic to get birth control pills to help control her heavy menstruation. The news was leaked and since, she has suffered a constant barrage of hazing by the entire school body and staff.
Don’t you find it coincidental that this happened at a MORMON school considering the Republican Presidential hopefuls? I’m actually surprised that the location wasn’t Notre Dame. I’m just sayin’
randy
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:48pmMy Thoughts exactly….. Fake letter
Report Post »GeorgieBaby
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:23pmYeah, it does seem a bit fishy. The writing on the letter is too carefully penned, and is not a “quick” note.
Report Post »thekuligs
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:23pmEither fake, or the pictures she provided are not a good example of how she normally dresses.
Report Post »rocker98
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:42pmActually, I think she would look great in anything. The poor boy just has no self control, is spending his school money on K.Y., and he’s blaming her. Get control of yourself boy, it’s nobodys fault but your own.
As for the young lady. Alter your dress if you wish, but carry something to beat this kid off with. He may be lurking in a bush sometime in the future.
Report Post »godhatesacoward
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:57pmI think she would look great in nothing.
Report Post »Common.Cents
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:41pmThe guy should be ashamed for being such a moron. I currently attend BYU, and I rarely see those types of guys, but they do exist. Frankly, it is none of his business.
Report Post »one.dakine.howlie
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 4:28pmI also attend BYU and know this girl. I talked to her about the incident. It didn’t take but a few hours to find the guy and confront him about the letter. For all you Blaze readers I can attest that this kid is a loner and was basically jealous that he couldn’t get a date with any “hot” girls so he decided to ruin some pretty girl’s day. He obviously had the right to speak his mind to her but we all know he was wrong in his opinion and approach. This is not normal behavior at BYU so I urge other Blaze readers to not once again make this an excuse to label the “Mormons” as cult lunatics.
Report Post »Todd P
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 4:59pm@ ONE.DAKINE.HOWLIE: Please let Ms. Molina know that despite what many Blaze posters say here, I know Mormons are not ‘cultists’ – just Christians with a tradition that’s different from other denominations. Some people believe that unless you worship exactly as they do, you’re weird. It’s unfortunate that some people here are not wise enough to see this story for what it is – an attack on Mitt Romney – there is nothing wrong with her clothing. The crazy leftists will do anything to discredit a person of faith, and apparently – so will the crazy right-wingers too.
ROMNEY / RUBIO 2012
Report Post »FranciscoDAnconia
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 9:52pmI live by the University. I guarantee you that this guy was fantasizing about her later on. Guys like that are not as virtuous as they appear. Its a facade to makeup for the lustful compulsions that he has in his head. A normal guy doesn’t go scanning every single girl at a University looking for the slightest sign of immodesty in at a school with an extreme dress code. If she was wearing a bikini that would be one thing. What did this guy do pull out his ruler to go measure the length of her dress? This is crazy and Mormons needs to distance themselves from freaks like this.
Report Post »4thGenerationWarrior
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:40pmi don’t know the young man who gave the note, but anyone who is that much of a stickler for the rules (note the girl’s slightly above-the-knee sun dress- a violation of the Honor Code, strictly speaking) is either earnestly overly zealous or has a pornography problem.
Report Post »babylonvi
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:36pmHow dare she appear on campus without a Burka…..shameful……..just shameful.
Report Post »hatchetjob
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:59pmI wish women and young girls would dress as nice as this girl does. She looks like a lady compared to the slutty things I see walking around where I shop.
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:48pm@HATCHETJOB
True, but the fact you call them ‘slutty’ shows you have certain standards on appearance. BYU and the LDS Church have standards also.
It’s amazing how society is shifting to an “anything goes” mentality and that those with conservative standards are belittled.
If you don‘t like the standards of the Church or it’s universities, don’t attend.
Report Post »krispy01
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:33pmIt looks like it covers her magical secret underwear.
Report Post »4thGenerationWarrior
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:41pmyou are a moron!
Report Post »Dancing_In_The_Ruins
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:52pmThat would be Mormon, not moron.
Report Post »krispy01
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:04pmWow ! Someone doesn’t have a sense of humor !
Report Post »ohbrutha
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 3:06pm@KRISPY01, the garment is considered sacred, not secret. No magic either. Last I checked, magic wasn’t real. It is an inward reminder of promises and commitments the wearer has made to the God they believe in. No different from a Catholic priest’s white collar. I respect your right to believe or not believe in whatever you choose, but why do you feel it necessary to belittle and disrespect something sacred to someone else’s beliefs? Do they not have the same rights you have, to believe what they choose? Time to grow up and show a little courtesy, or do you not believe in that either?
Report Post »Todd P
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:02pm@ OHBRUTHA: You said it perfectly. Well done. All people of faith should be able to agree with that.
ROMNEY / RUBIO 2012
Report Post »GoodStuff
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:32pmMormonism is based on man-made legalism, not Biblical-based Grace. It’s why so many leave the faith and why suicide rates are high in Mormon areas…because they believe you can never please God enough, and there is no guarantee of salvation.
Sad that so many have been fooled by this man made religion based on “works-righteous” salvation.
Report Post »jcase16
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:41pmplease shut up… I‘m sick of you bigoted people on here that like to rip other people’s religions. I could go off on just about every religion on how stupid some point or another is in their belief system, but I don’t. Have fun making fun of other people’s religions publicly. Sounds like the Christian way to me. Why don’t you try the love your neighbor part instead of the berate them method. There isn‘t a religion out there that can’t be torn to pieces if you try to take it literally instead of by the scriptures and belief. That’s why there are so many Atheists. It’s much “easier” to not believe than it is to believe sometimes. Please leave others religions alone unless you want to actually have a discussion, which you were obviously not trying to do.
Report Post »unwillingchild
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:41pmActually, suicide rates among mormons are low, at least according to the first few studies I found on the subject. If you have an axe to grind, you should at least use factual data.
Report Post »4thGenerationWarrior
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:43pmgoodstuff, it is sad that you and others like you lie and give false “facts” about the LDS faith and faithful
Report Post »Silversmith
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:52pm@jcase16 Sounds like you just missed your opportunity for a debate. I don’t see goodstuffs comment as “making fun”. I didn’t hear a joke at all. Sounded like a statement of what they think. Agree – disagree, your choice —- But “shut up” makes you sound — well — 16
Silversmith
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:58pm@GOODSTUFF
Since you see fit to post your comment twice, I will post my reply twice:
@GOODSTUFF
That is a false statement.
Latter Day Saints ABSOLUTELY believe in grace; It is ONLY by grace we are saved
The works are an expression of our belief.
“Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” James 2:17
Report Post »P8riot
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:02pm@GOODSTUFF – I don‘t know if you’re new to the site or if you simply haven’t seen the hundreds of posts from members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints explaining what you’re confused about. WE BELIEVE THAT SALVATION COMES ONLY THROUGH JESUS CHRIST!
We simply understand that “faith without works is dead.” (James 2). We also understand that “not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” (Matthew 7:21). Thus, Christ is who saves us but through faith and by doing the will of our Father which is in heaven qualifies us for that grace.
If works do not matter, then why does Christ himself teach that a person must repent or perish? (Luke 13:3).
Report Post »Silversmith
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:08pmAnd just for fun, I did a little digging on the whole “Mormon/Suicide” connection, and it‘s pretty clear that you can get whatever answer you need from whatever group’s study fits your point of view. So I’d steer clear of that debate.
Silversmith
Report Post »THX-1138
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:17pmNothing good can come from criticizing anothers religion.
Report Post »GeorgieBaby
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:29pmAnti-Mormonism is equivalent to Anti-Semitism. I find it hypocritical that evangelical christians support and defend Israel, and decry Anti-Semitism yet at the same time exhibit and practice the same hatred, spread lies, and vitriol as Muslim extremists do toward the Jews.
You should be asking yourself why your pastor or church spends so much time spreading lies, which you then propogate, about Mormons and their faith. In Mormon meetings on Sunday, not one second is spent disparaging or evenn discussing other faiths. We have a respect for others faith, their religion, and their freedom to worship as they please.
And as far as your comment about “works,” we very much believe that it is a combination of faith, grace, mercy AND works. Repentence and conversion aren’t about what we just say and think we believe – but it is about what we DO with that faith and belief going forwards in our lives. Also your stats and inferences to inactivity and suicides in the church have no merit.
Report Post »Todd P
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:05pm@ GOODSTUFF :
…wow. If you had a brain, you might be dangerous. Please, take your meds!
Report Post »SpankDaMonkey
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:29pm.
Report Post »My Eye’s, My Eye’s take your clothes off quick. That dress is killing me………
Todd P
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:11pmOkay, well – yeah, that was funny.
;-)
Report Post »american_rose_126
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:27pmThe dress would be a bit short if she were wearing it solely as a dress with nothing underneath. But she is clearly wearing leggings with it–which a lot of girls wear as pants! My roommate is quite modest–and she has worn many outfits like this. Leggings, tunic/dress, boots, sweater, no cleavage, flowing…umm, yeah. I think the problem is with HIM!! Get help. He clearly does not know how to harness his hormones around cute girls! That actually makes me really nervous about him.
Report Post »9111315
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:01pmAgreed. She has pants (leggings) on. Maybe her shirt is too long.
Report Post »GeorgieBaby
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 3:21pmThe dress code at BYU isn’t just about covering skin, its about covering the body. Tights/leggings cover skin. Clothing covers the body. The honor code states that skirts and dresses should come just below the knee, not above with tights or leggings.
Report Post »unwillingchild
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:24pmAs a BYU graduate, an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and a whole-hearted supporter of the Honor Code, I have to say that the guy is a total and complete jerk for having done this. What he did was wrong, self-righteous, and cowardly. Technically, her skirt is too short. So, she is in violation. However, that does not justify this cowardly act on the part of the guy. He should take the beam out of his own eye.
Report Post »Machtyn
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:29pmWhile I did not go to BYU, I did go to Ricks College (now BYU-I). That looks conforming to the honor code to me.
Was it this guy who wrote the note or another girl who asked this guy to deliver it. Nice handwriting on the note, but not necessarily feminine. Interesting. Are some people so offended that other people are born better looking? Just like some people are born smarter, some are more athletic… we each have talents – jealousy, pride, and resentment are not talents.
Report Post »jcase16
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:36pmWent to and graduated from BYU. This guy is a nutjob. The rules at BYU are strict but this passes in my book and I DEFINITELY saw worse while attending BYU. Also, everyone should know that the honor code at BYU is not the same as the standards of the church. For instance, you can’t have a beard at BYU, but the Mormon beliefs are not the same.
This guy was either playing a prank or he’s a moron.
Report Post »TEWMINATOR
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 11:34pmGood grief people..The BYU cheerleader squad violates its own policy….If Jesus Himself came to visit the University, He’d be kicked off!!! Can anyone say “Pharisee”
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 3:48pm…that is, unless you;re Darren and claim patent falsehood without citation.
But hey- at least I showed my sources. Just sayin’.
As to “ascension to godhood,” all of the quotes thrown around only show what everyone esle reads as we are all children of God, and we can all ascend (SEE?! HE SAID IT!)… to Heaven in Glorified bodies. Not to be gods of other planets. To Heaven. I’ll repeat again, just in case someone isn;t getting it: ONLY TO HEAVEN, period, that’s all, without any godhood status conferred.
Here’s a stupid question: if God was handing out godhood status to anyone who crossed the finish line, why did He spend so much time denouncing the worship of anyone but Him? And since that’s His stance here and He is God of *all* of the Universe, wouldn’t that be the same as it would be for the god of Mars and Jupiter, or Krypton and Oa (if you don’t know it, look it up), for that matter?
Wouldn’t He have said to the Jews in plain Hebrew: “Look, you guys keep screwing up and I can’t give you godhood status like I want to,” through any of the OT Prophets? Or was that something that was revealed much later?
Isn’t it funny that most Mormons hate the “living, breathing Constitution” argument, but do believe in a living, breathing Bible?
That‘s all I’m saying. You guys have actually done a much better job of outing your cult’s heresy than I ever did.
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 8:34pmLeftLover;
“To Heaven. I’ll repeat again, just in case someone isn;t getting it: ONLY TO HEAVEN, period, that’s all, without any godhood status conferred.”
First off, I don‘t think you posted this in the correct thread as your statement doesn’t exactly follow along the line of cheerleaders at BYU. Second, I have shown my sources *plenty* of times in the past. As I told a certain Evangelical here, they never learn despite how many times they are corrected. As for you acertion about not obtaining godhood:
When accused of blashpamy for making Himself God, Jesus told the Jews, ” 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” (John 10). He was referring to Psalms 82:6 which says: “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.” so here we have Christ Himself calling people, even disbelievers, “gods” and why? Because they are children of the Most High God (El Elyon). When Jesus prayed He pleaded tothe Father: “that they may be one, as we are.” (John 17:11). How are we to be one *as* jesus and the Father are to be one? That’s through reprentence and through the mercy of Christ. This is how we become “joint heirs” with Christ in the kingdom of the Father. This is all godhood. As children of God most High, we are already gods and through the atonementt of the Son, we can become one wit the Father *as* the Son is one with Him and inheret all the Father has.
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 8:41pmLeft Lover;
For a very indepth lok into the history of deification in Christianity’s own theoogical history I highyl recommend you reading, several articles on Athansaius’ Deification, it’s doctrinal sources and its place in Christian theology. Here’ it is starting with the introduction.
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=5&chapterID=35
Report Post »thankfulness
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:24pmThere is absolutly nothing wrong with what she is wearing in the pictures that I see. She is modestly dressed in my opinion. I would wear the same type clothes if I were 15 years younger.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:22pm…and Romney is trying to make the Catholic look like a zealot?
Report Post »MS-GlenNBC
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:29pmlike
Report Post »Machtyn
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:36pmNo, Romney isn’t doing that. The Left are doing that. Besides, it was Santorum that actually came out and said our Freedoms are not absolute. http://swampland.time.com/2012/02/14/rick-santorum-wants-to-fight-the-dangers-of-contraception/
Report Post »Santorum actually said the following in that interview:
“Freedom’s not absolute. What rights in the Constitution are absolute? There is no right to absolute freedom. There are limitations. You might want to say the same thing about a whole variety of other things that are on the Internet — “let everybody have it, let everybody do it.” No. There are certain things that actually do cost people a lot of money, cost them their lives, cost them their fortunes that we shouldn’t have and make available, to make it that easy to do. That’s why we regulate gambling. You have a big commission here that regulates gambling, for a reason.”
Gonzo
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:47pmRomney IS the left.
Report Post »Avigdor
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:48pmOur freedoms are not absolute. You do not have an absolute freedom of speech, there are limits. For example you can not threaten someone which is a limit on speech. And we have limits on freedom of assemble such as not being able to organize a riot. And we are not allowed total freedom of religion as we can not do human sacrifice for example.
We have freedom, within limits.
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:03pmMormon burquhas, all around!
Why not? They’re both religions invented by polygamist pedophiles “because the Scriputre was wrong.” Pay no mind to the fact that the Dead Sea scrolls have been checked, rechecked, and re-rechecked… and have disproven any claims to changes to the Old Testament.
As to the Mormons’ claim of changes to the New Testament, the earliest written texts in existence date back to w/in 50 years of them being penned & (since they were memorized by the Faithful) it’s impossible that they had been changed w/o everyone knowing it happened. No- the charge came 1700 years later by a soothsayer looking with spectacles into a golden plate that nobody ever saw but him.
Yeah, I know. I’m an anti-Mormon hatemonger for believing the cult of Mormonism is a construct of Satan intended to lead the Faithful away from Christianity.
All I know is this: nowhere in any translation of the Bible does it say:
-that there are multiple gods (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163),
-that God came from another planet (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321; Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 345; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333),
-that He has a goddess wife (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443),
-that Satan is Jesus’ brother (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.),
-or that man can ascend to godhood (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-347, 354).
I could go on, but I don’t think I even
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:55pm@@LEFTFIGHTER
You’re right…science is a much better thing to put your faith into – it is infallible!!
I wish you luck in your non-belief.
Can you respect my right to worship as I see fit?
What kind of world do you hold as Utopian? Technocratic?
Does your Atheism require you to evangelize with the energy you do?
Report Post »GWest
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 3:02pm@left fighter
I don’t know how you were as a Marine, but your a sloppy, lazy researcher.
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 3:25pm@LEFTFIGHTER
I do not dispute the doctrines you mentioned. As far as I know, they are accurate. I just have a few things to say in regards to them:
1) Most people are not taught the true doctrine or beliefs of their own church or its leaders, Latter Day Saints are. I would argue that most people are at odds with their churches beliefs.
2) If the Bible is the definitive word of God, how come so much was left out when it was compiled by the Council of Niece?
3) What would you have said to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John after they wrote their Gospels?
4) What would you have said to Paul or the other epistle writers?
5) Where is the church that Christ established? Are there no more apostles, seventies, deacons or the other offices He established?
We believe in continuing revelation, you do not. One of us is right.
It is just as much your right to be wrong as it is mine.
Report Post »GeorgieBaby
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 3:50pm@LEFTFIGHTER – Anti-Mormonism is equivalent to Anti-Semitism. I find it hypocritical that evangelical christians support and defend Israel, and decry Anti-Semitism yet at the same time exhibit and practice the same hatred, spread lies, and vitriol directed at Mormons as Muslim extremists do toward the Jews.
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 4:28pmLeft(Lover)Fighter;
Thomas Edison was born in 1841. He married in 1871. that would make him 30 years old, correct?
“On December 25, 1871, Edison married 16-year-old Mary Stilwell, whom he had met two months earlier as she was an employee at one of his shops. They had three children:”
Was he a pedophile?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison#Marriages_and_children
“Pay no mind to the fact that the Dead Sea scrolls have been checked, rechecked, and re-rechecked… and have disproven any claims to changes to the Old Testament”
Huh? There’s a huge change in Deuteronomy as shown in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Here’s Deut. 32:8, ” When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.“ The Septuagint in Greek changes ”children of Isreal“ to ”angels of God”. The Dead Sea Scriolls, however, changes it to what I think is most accurate, “according tot he number of the sons of God”. In verse 9 it mentions the “LORD’s portion”. LORD (all caps) is YHWH or the true God of Isreal. According ottheDead sea Scrolls, YHWH is a “son of God” who inherited Isreal from God. That directly inplicates existing two gods, not just one as the Masoretic text implies.
(con’t)
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 4:38pm(con’t);
“that there are multiple gods (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163),”
That’s biblical
“that God came from another planet ”
No official Mormon doctrine says any such thing.
“that He has a goddess wife ”
We know nothing of her. The Father is our worship through His Son and guided by the Holy Spirit. That’s it. We do believe that gender is eternal and that logically, if there’s a father then there isa mother somewhere.
“that Satan is Jesus’ brother ”
As both were created by God, yes. In terms of who these beings are are poar opposites. Jesus is who Mormons follow.
“or that man can ascend to godhood ”
That’s soundly biblical and was very much part of Christianity until around the7th century.
Report Post »martinez012577
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:19pm@brother ed
1. Where is your proof “most people are not taught the true doctrine or beliefs of their own church”?
2. Faith, that God wouldnt let his book be destroyed and perverted.
3. They physically wrote the words God told them to write.
4. Same for them.
5. His people are his Church. There is no need for shady rituals involving slitting of the throat, handshakes, special underwear, or a new book.
You believe in a book created by a man that was convicted of fraud, had 33 wives one of which was 14, who also prophesised in the name of God things that did not come true. He also was brought to this new gospel by an angel, something the Bible is pretty clear on not to trust.
If there were not so many issues with the Mormon faith, I wouldnt careless what you believe, but the fact you try and trick Christian people into believing your are a Christian bothers me. If you are wrong, you are leading another person to hell with you. Everyone one of the people you converted will be on you, you will be the reason they were lead astray.
If you believe God was a man on another planet or that you can become a god, you are not worshiping the God and Jesus Christ of the Bible.
Report Post »Todd P
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:23pmRomney is a conservative – in many ways more so than Santorum or Gingrich (is he even still in the race?). You really should quit listening to what OTHERS say about Mitt, and start listening to what the man himself says. I could say all kinds of things about you too, but it would be far more enlightening to listen to what YOU say if I want to form an opinion about you.
ROMNEY / RUBIO 2012
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:44pm@brother_ed
Uh- partner? Nothing in my post indicated I’m a non-believer.
Unlike you and every other follower of Joseph Smith, I am a Christian.
I just don’t believe in your cult.
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:46pm@brother_ed wrote: “As far as I know, they are accurate.”
Then maybe you can point to the scripture in any source other than a Mormon cultist’s book?
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 6:21pm@Brother_Ed my point-for-point rebuttal:
1) Let’s not argue Straw Men. You have no way to prove this, but I can prove that the majority of Christianity is at odds with Mormonism.
2) Like what, exactly? The OT is word-for-word with the TNK, albeit in a different order. The Gospels are the same, word-for-word as well. The fact is, there’s no proof any non-gnostic texts left out at Nicea. http://www.christian-history.org/nicea-myths.html
3 & 4) Nonsensical Q, but will answer anyway. I would have said they were all extremely lucky to have been able to see the Face of the Living God, that they were towers of my Faith, but ultimately, interchangeable parts. They didn’t write the Bible, God did. They merely dictated.
5) Jesus’ established Church resides in all Christians. Apostles: (def.) A prominent Christian missionary. Southern Baptists, for one, are all over the place on missions. Have you never been visited by the Jehovah’s Witnesses (Another cult, BTW)? Saying non-Mormon Apostles don’t exist farcical argument. Seventies- see prior, Deacon: layperson assisting a minister (this is every Christian helping any minister on the planet, myself included), the other offices He established- since all prior to this are filled, I‘m assuming they’re all filled as well.
You’re implying that only Mormons follow the structure that Jesus set up within the Church. There is no merit in the argument.
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 6:29pm@GWest
Don’t know where you went to school, but “your” a terrible speller.
Oh- and these are all known doctries of the Momon church and Brother_Ed gave a half-hearted defense of them (”as far as I know, they’re all correct”), so there’s that.
If my research is wrong, don‘t tell me I’m a sloppy researcher, prove me wrong. Until then, I stand backed up by Mormon writings, found only in Mormon books. No justification of any of that is found in my Holman, NKJ, Old KJ, NIV, or Amplified Bible.
If you could kindly point to verses in the Bible (not BoM) where God has laid it all out, I’ll convert tomorrow. The truth is, it’s nowhere to be found, which is why Mormons spend much more time on the “Woe Is Me, You People Are Such Religious Bigots” card than justifying your beliefs by Scripture and Verse from the actual Bible.
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 6:35pm@GeorgieBaby
Where’s the lie? Please show me where I lied. If you can show me in the Christian Bible the justification for any of the garbage you believe, I’ll convert tomorrow.
As it is, there’s only one thing we have in common, and that’s Jesus is the Messiah. You deny His Godhood. I don’t.
As to your anti-Mormon / Anti-Semitism complaint, there’s a bit of a difference, in that Judaism is a legitimate religion, not something cooked up by some soothsayer.
That is, unless you can show me that Smith didn’t “read” golden plates that nobody else ever saw with “spectacles” the name for which he borrowed from Judaism, but looked absolutely nothing like them, as described in the Torah.
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 6:38pm@Darren
You’re arguing translation errors? Okay- then maybe that’s why I have so many translations at my disposal.
YouVersion is a wonderful thing.
@martinez012577
Amen, Brother, preach it!
Magic underwear… lol
Report Post »P8riot
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 6:42pm@Leftfighter – First off – Semper Fi brother! I got out of the Marines in 2004 as a Sergeant… Light Armored Recon. What did you do?
Secondly, I have to address your comment – “Unlike you and every other follower of Joseph Smith, I am a Christian.I just don’t believe in your cult.”
1. We simply follow Joseph Smith’s teachings as a Prophet of God. We don’t follow him any more than the Israelites followed Moses as a Prophet of God.
2. You imply that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not Christian. You could not be further from the truth. A “Christian” is someone who follows and believes in Christ… simple enough? I promise you that we follow and believe in Christ… thus making us Christians. Feel free to disagree with interpretation of scripture and doctrine, but you do not own the copyrights to the title of “Christian”… only Christ can make that call, and He leads our Church (so I think its obvious where he would come down on that decision).
3. You call us a “cult.“ You really need to define ”cult” because generally people define it in a negative connotation relating to a small group of unorthodox people who follow a charismatic leader. Unfortunately for you argument, any definition you give that includes Mormons and excludes evangelicals would probably also include Christ himself and all “Christians” during the first century.
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 6:42pm@MARTINEZ012577
1) I ask others to explain their church’s doctrine beyond “Ilove Jesus” and I get blank stares. Either they are not taught what their leaders believe regarding where we are from and where we are going or their church has no such doctrine.
2) Do you deny the historical facts of The Council at Niece and the influence of Constantine?
3) Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and others ‘added’ to a collection of works already existent…was there any resistence to that? Would you say “a Bible!! We’ve already got a Bible?”
4) same as above
5) Really? He didn’t organize his church into Apostles, etc? He didn’t give authority to some to preform ordinance, like baptism? You may need to read the Bible a little more carefully.
Joesph Smith Jr was accused of fraud, not convicted. He was actually brought up for treason numerous times and found not guilty. They thought that by preaching Jesus would return and establish a kingdom was treasonous to the US government.
Polygamy is Biblical.
I’m not sure about your angel statement, seems as though angels are God’s messengers.
I believe in Jesus Christ, that makes me a Christian (a follower of Christ).
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 7:07pm@Darren
Almost forgot:
Roman Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. Is he a pedophile?
The obvious answer is “YES!”
I can‘t believe you’re defending a Man who married two 14 year olds, a 16 year old, and two 17 year olds. This was a sick POS.
Report Post »P8riot
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 7:18pm@Leftfighter – “That is, unless you can show me that Smith didn’t “read” golden plates that nobody else ever saw with “spectacles” the name for which he borrowed from Judaism, but looked absolutely nothing like them, as described in the Torah.”
You’re getting in over your head now. I presume you’re speaking of the Urim and Thummim? Joseph Smith describes them being fastened to a breastplate EXACTLY the way they were described in the Old Testament. By they way, the name was not “borrowed form Judaism” – Joseph Smith called them by the same name they are known in the Bible. Of course, as I’m sure you know, the Hebrew translation means “Lights and Perfections.” For a lesson on the Urim and Thummim, please see See Ex. 28:30; Lev. 8:8; Num. 27:21; Deut. 33:8; 1 Sam. 28:6; Ezra 2:63; Neh. 7:65… then try to tell me they’re not real.
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 7:41pm@P8RIOT. Oorah, Teuffel.
1. Drawing a comparison between Moses, who we both agree is a Prophet of God, and Smith isn’t any comparison at all. Scriputre teaches us to shun false prophets, which Scripture defines as someone who claims to speak with God’s Authority. As God writes history, we will agree that God’s Prophets are never wrong, even once, because God tells them what to say. Smith predicted the Second Coming (which Jesus said nobody could do) and he got it wrong. Moses = prophet. Smith = false prophet.
2. The unwavering core tenets of Christianity are that there is one triune God, Father-Son-Spirit, and that He’s God of all of creation (not just this world), and that man cannot ascend to godhood. Mormons believe none of these things. Rather, you believe in secret teachings and knowledge. You’re modern-day gnostics, at best. Even Satan believes Jesus is the savior of humanity. Tht doesn’t make him Christian.
3. Your definition of “cult” lacks one crucial element, that the leader of the cult organizes the cult to aggrandize and otherwise make himself the center of the faith. While Smith lived, this was true. The broader definition did fit Jesus and the earliest Christians, and they were called a cult as well, true, but Jesus’ “new” religion wasn’t new, rather the fulfillment of Judaism, and the center of it wasn’t Him, but God the Father.
This isn‘t simple doctrine issues as I’d have with Catholics or Episcopalians. These are major core tenet
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 9:30pm@LEFTFIGHTER
“Uh- partner? Nothing in my post indicated I’m a non-believer.
Unlike you and every other follower of Joseph Smith, I am a Christian.
I just don’t believe in your cult.”
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
I accept the fact that you and I follow different doctrine, but you‘re bordering on hatred when you call my religion a ’cult’.
Do you call other denominations out on the differences between you and them?
Aren’t most Christian denominations started by a man who claims to know better than the church he lefty to start his own?
What about Wesley, Calvin, Luther, etc.? What about all the non-denominationals whose founders are ‘called of God’ to start a new church?
Your posts aren’t acknowledging any of this. You are anti-Mormon.
I believe Jesus Christ is the Savior of all man-kind, and I try to follow his teachings -that makes me a Christian (one who follows Christ)
We are on the same side, stop fighting me. Allow me my religious beliefs, as I allow you yours.
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 11:35pmLeftLover;
Was Edison a pedophile. His marriage to Mary Stilwel is in no way shape of form equivalent to drugging and raping a minor unless, of course, you wish to equate your own marriage to a rapist. I for one find that comaparison sickening. Is this your example of Christianity?
Not only did Thomas Edison marry a 16 year old when he was 30, but what were the ages of marriage “back in the day”? Read this:
“By the 1920s the age of consent, a state issue in the United States, was raised in every state and ranged from fourteen to eighteen, with most states settling on sixteen or eighteen.”
http://www.faqs.org/childhood/A-Ar/Age-of-Consent.html
And I do believe that Delaware in the time of Edison’s marriage had the legal age of consent at 13.
And by calling Joseph Smith a “sick POS” you fail to aknowledge something vital: there is no evidence anywhere that Joseph Smith ever had any sexual relations except with Emma. There’s no “love child”, no journal entry, no testimony from relatives, even immediate family, of Smith’s wives, nothing. Why so if Smith was a “sick POS”?
“You’re arguing translation errors? Okay- then maybe that’s why I have so many translations at my disposal.”
As far as the Masretic text, yes. I think the Dead Sea Scrolls preserve a far better scripture of Deuteronomy 36.
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 12:25amLeftlover;
“As God writes history, we will agree that God’s Prophets are never wrong, even once, because God tells them what to say.”
A simple but significant corrwction to that statement. True prophets have been “wrong” in the sense that various biblical prophecies were not fulfilled as prophecied but this does not make them “false” prohpets. God handles the conditions which prophecies are fulfilled and it is by His Holy Spirit which we as individual children of God knows a prophet to be true, not by analyzing their prophecies. By doing ther latter you’re only being a sign seeker. By relying upno the Holy Spirit you’re only doing as God would have you do and using a great gift He has bestowed upon us through His Beloved Son.
“Smith predicted the Second Coming (which Jesus said nobody could do) and he got it wrong.’
He DID NOT predict the Second Coming. “History of the Church” is often cited that he did. i think it is Volume 4 which people use. Idf you read volume 6, Smith himself is cited as saying that God has never revealed to him the time of His coming. Also, if you examine thew doctrinal source of the volume 4 citation which is in D&C clearly was NOT about Christ’s Second Comnig.
“The unwavering core tenets of Christianity are that there is one triune God, Father-Son-Spirit, and that He’s God of all of creation (not just this world)”
excatly what mormons believe
(con’t)
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 12:30am(con’t);
“and that man cannot ascend to godhood”
Patently false. Ascension to godhood though the Beloved Son of God Most High is solidly biblical. This wasalso arich partof Christian theology until it was rejected around the 5th century by the Latin Christians and about 200 years later by eastern Christians.
“Even Satan believes Jesus is the savior of humanity. Tht doesn’t make him Christian.’
That‘s because Satan doesn’t exactly follow Christ, Mormons do.
“the cult to aggrandize and otherwise make himself the center of the faith. While Smith lived, this was true.’
Um, no it wasn’t. Smith preached the word of God, even when he didn’t want to. He gained nothing worldy from his preaching. I guess you can say that “true Christians” made sure of that. Joseph Smith clearly taught that the glory was to God and God alone.
Report Post »GWest
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 1:01am@leftfighter”All I know is this: nowhere in any translation of the Bible does it say: -that there are multiple gods (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163),”
• thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, Ps. 8:5
• madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands, Ps. 8:6
• Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High, Ps. 82:6
• Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father, Matt. 5:48 (3 Ne. 12:48).
• spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have, Luke 24:39
• Is it not written in your law … Ye are gods, John 10:34 (Ps. 82:1–8; D&C 76:58).
• we are the offspring of God, Acts 17:29
• heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ, Rom. 8:17
• changed into the same image from glory to glory, 2 Cor. 3:18
• if a son, then an heir of God through Christ, Gal. 4:7
• Till we all come … unto a perfect man, Eph. 4:13
• be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live, Heb. 12:9
• when he shall appear, we shall be like him, 1 Jn. 3:2
• him that overcometh will … sit with me in my throne, Rev. 3:21
The Father is the one true God. This thing is certain: no one will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him. He is Elohim, the Father. He is God. Of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him.
Report Post »GWest
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 1:03am@leftfighter -”that God came from another planet (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321; Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 345; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333), ”
Many Latter-day Saints infer that because we, as children of God, now live as mortals in this world and have the potential to become gods through the atonement of Christ, that God the Father must have gone through a similar process to be where He is. Early leaders (including Joseph Smith) taught something to this effect. But it’s something about which we know very little, since nothing formal has been revealed to the Church and very little was explained by early leaders. Could it be so? Logically, yes, but we simply don’t know very much about it. As far as we are concerned, God the Father has always been our God and always will be, and we leave it at that. Anything else is really just theological speculation—interesting, but not terribly important.
Report Post »GWest
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 1:06am@leftfighter -”that God came from another planet (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321; Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 345; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333), ”
Many Latter-day Saints infer that because we, as children of God, now live as mortals in this world and have the potential to become gods through the atonement of Christ, that God the Father must have gone through a similar process to be where He is. Early leaders (including Joseph Smith) taught something to this effect. But… it’s something about which we know very little, since nothing formal has been revealed to the Church and very little was explained by early leaders. Could it be so? Logically, yes, but we simply don’t know very much about it. As far as we are concerned, God the Father has always been our God and always will be, and we leave it at that. Anything else is really just theological speculation—interesting, but not terribly important.
Report Post »GWest
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 1:08am@leftfighter-”that He has a goddess wife (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443),”
All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father as offspring of celestial parentage, all men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity. Logic and reason would certainly suggest that if we have a Father in Heaven, we have a Mother in Heaven. None of us can add to or diminish the glory of her of whom we have no revealed knowledge.
Report Post »GWest
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 1:11am@leftfighter -”that Satan is Jesus’ brother (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.),”Like other Christians, we believe Jesus is the divine Son of God. Satan is a fallen angel. As the Apostle Paul wrote, God is the Father of all. That means that all beings were created by God and are His spirit children. Christ, however, was the only begotten in the flesh, and we worship Him as the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. It is technically true to say that Jesus and Satan are “brothers,” in the sense that both have the same spiritual parent, God the Father. Cain and Abel were also brothers, and yet no Bible reader believes that they are spiritual equals or equally admirable. In a similar way, Latter-day Saints do not believe that Jesus and Satan are equals. The scriptures clearly teach the superiority of Jesus over the devil and that Michael (or Adam) and Lucifer (Satan) and their followers fought against each other to uphold the plan of the Father and the Son. You also ignore the Biblical references that imply that Satan is one of the “sons of God.” (Job:16, Job 2:1) While it is true that all mortals share a spiritual parent with Jesus (and Satan, and every other spiritual child of God), we now have a different, more important relationship with Jesus. All of God’s children, except Jesus, have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Only through Jesus can any mortal return home to God the Father.This return becomes possible when a sinner is born again, and adopted by Christ, who
Report Post »GWest
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 1:12am@leftfighter ”or that man can ascend to godhood (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-347, 354).”
• let them have dominion, Gen. 1:26 (Moses 2:26).
Report Post »• man is become as one of us, Gen. 3:22 (Moses 4:28).
• be holy: for I … am holy, Lev. 19:2 (1 Pet. 1:16).
• thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, Ps. 8:5
• madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands, Ps. 8:6
• Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High, Ps. 82:6
• Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father, Matt. 5:48 (3 Ne. 12:48).
• spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have, Luke 24:39
• Is it not written in your law … Ye are gods, John 10:34 (Ps. 82:1–8; D&C 76:58).
• we are the offspring of God, Acts 17:29
• heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ, Rom. 8:17
• changed into the same image from glory to glory, 2 Cor. 3:18
• if a son, then an heir of God through Christ, Gal. 4:7
• Till we all come … unto a perfect man, Eph. 4:13
• be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live, Heb. 12:9
• when he shall appear, we shall be like him, 1 Jn. 3:2
• him that overcometh will … sit with me in my throne, Rev. 3:21
GWest
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 1:59am@leftfighter“magic underwear”?How absurd and infantile are you guys? You claim to be Christian, but you definitely don’t act the part, the parable of the Good Samaritan is lost on many professing Christ. You, and “Christians” like you are more interested in putting a Mormon’s faith in the worst light possible, your tactics, your lack of decency exposes you for what you really are, “un” Christian. “You treat us as if we are evil. You fail to see the irony of using the same tactics to attack our faith as Muslim leadership in the Middle East uses to attack Jews. You sat on the sidelines while we defended the sanctity of marriage in California, you sat back and watched the media attack us, but you enjoyed that because you hate us, and it wasn’t your faith being attacked. Never mind the fact that it was a conservative cause. You’re so blinded by your ignorant hate of Mormons that you would rather not unite with a fellow conservative who happens to be a Mormon, how utterly myopic are you guys? You accuse Mormons of playing the woe is me card when we’re the ones willing to work with you or any conservative to pass conservative legislation, apparently you guys aren’t.Apparently you guys would rather see the country go to hell than see Mormons as an ally.You accuse us of pulling the bigotry card, good night, if there’s anyone that deserves it, it’s “Christians” like you.You call yourself a leftfighter,that’s ironic,since your here using leftist tactics to
Report Post »P8riot
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 1:16pmlooks like the “Mormons” are the only ones using the bible to prove their points. Many anti-mormons may have a different interpretation of the scriptures quoted (which many could only be interpreted differently by not taking the bible literally)… but no one can deny that “Mormon” doctrine is based on biblical teachings after reading the above posts. Of course different religions will interpret scriptures differently, that’s why there are thousands of different Christian sects! What better example to show the need for a living prophet to show us the way, just like in biblical times.
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 3:31pmWow. I don’t have much more to add to what Brother_Ed, Darren, and Gwest have said.
If you don’t see ther heresy in all that Mormon doctrine, I don’t know what else I have to say to illustrate the difference between all of the common beliefs of the different Christian denominations and Mormonism.
I stand corrected in one part of my argument, though. Pedophilia is sexual preference for prepubescent minors. Ephebophilia may the correct term, but only that sick freak knows for sure if the girls he slept with were pubescent or not. And yes, both Smith and apparently Bell fit the bill.
I mean, if defending an ephebophile by comparing him to another ephebophile, then asking if it’s wrong since both of them did it has some pretty sick potential consequences. For example, if a 40 year old Mormon has sex with a spate of minors and then says, “Hey- Joseph Smith married Sarah Ann Whitney (17), Flora Ann Woodworth (16), Lucy Walker (17), Sarah Lawrence (17), Helen Mar Kimball (14), and Nancy Mariah Winchester (14) all inside of about a year and a half, when he was 37 and (most of which in May, 1843 when he was) 38. This is my religious right because I’m following the founder of my faith.”
As to the quotes from the Bible, why is it that nobody, Jews, Christians, NOBODY but Mormons read any type of ascension to godhood into any of that? (con’t)
Report Post »GWest
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 6:00pm@leftfighter
Report Post »Good question, why don’t you? Saint Irenaeus, who may justly be called the first Biblical theologian among the ancient Christians, was a disciple of the great Polycarp, who was a direct disciple of John the Revelator. Irenaeus is not a heretic or unorthodox in traditional Christian circles, yet he shares a belief in theosis:“While man gradually advances and mounts towards perfection; that is, he approaches the eternal. The eternal is perfect; and this is God. Man has first to come into being, then to progress, and by progressing come to manhood, and having reached manhood to increase, and thus increasing to persevere, and persevering to be glorified, and thus see his Lord.”
Like Mormons, Irenaeus did not believe that this belief in any way displaced God, Christ, or the Holy Ghost:“there is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption….Since, therefore, this is sure and stedfast, that no other God or Lord was announced by the Spirit, except Him who, as God, rules over all, together with His Word, and those who receive the Spirit of adoption.”Yet, Irenaeus—whom it is absurd to exclude from the ranks of orthodox Christians—believed in theosis in terms which agree with Mormon thinking on the matter:“We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods.”
continued…
GWest
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 6:03pm@leftfigterAlso:”How then will any be a god, if he has not first been made a man? How can any be perfect when he has only lately been made man? How immortal, if he has not in his mortal nature obeyed his maker? For one’s duty is first to observe the discipline of man and thereafter to share in the glory of God.”And:”Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, of his boundless love, became what we are that he might make us what he himself is.” And:”But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, “I have said, Ye are gods, and all sons of the Most High.” To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the “adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father.””
Report Post »And, Irenaeus considers the doctrine clearly Biblical, just as the Mormons do:”For he who holds, without pride and boasting, the true glory (opinion) regarding created things and the Creator, who is the Almighty God of all, and who has granted existence to all; [such an one, ] continuing in His love and subjection, and giving of thanks, shall also receive from Him the greater glory of promotion, looking forward to the time when he shall become like Him who died for him, for He, too, “was made in the likeness of sinful flesh,” to condemn sin, and to cast it, as now a condemned thing, away beyond the flesh, but that He might call man forth into His own likeness, assigning him as [His own] imitator to God, and imposing on him His Father’s law, in order that he may see God, and granting him power to receive
GWest
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 6:07pm@leftfighter cont..”[being] the Word of God who dwelt in man, and became the Son of man, that He might accustom man to receive God, and God to dwell in man, according to the good pleasure of the Father.”Said one Protestant theologian of Irenaeus:”Participation in God was carried so far by Irenaeus as to amount to deification. ‘We were not made gods in the beginning,’ he says, ‘but at first men, then at length gods.‘ This is not to be understood as mere rhetorical exaggeration on Irenaeus’ part. He meant the statement to be taken literally.”
Report Post »Clement(AD 150-215) an early Christian leader in Alexandria, also taught the doctrine of deification:
“yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.”And:”…if one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God…His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes god, since God wills it. So Heraclitus was right when he said, “Men are gods, and gods are men.”Those who have been perfected are given their reward and their honors. They have done with their purification, they have done with the rest of their service, though it be a holy service, with the holy; now they become pure in heart, and because of their close intimacy with the Lord there awaits them a restoration to eternal contemplation; and they have received the title of “gods” since they are destined to be enthroned with the other “gods” who are ranked next below the the savio
GWest
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 6:13pm@leftfighterOrigen (ca. AD 185-251)”And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, “The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.” It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is “The God,” and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype.” And:”The Father, then, is proclaimed as the one true God; but besides the true God are many who become gods by participating in God.“Origen also defined what it means to ”participate” in something:”Every one who participates in anything, is unquestionably of one essence and nature with him who is partaker of the same thing.”Justin the Martyr said in 150 A.D. that he wishes “to prove to you that the Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept Hiscommandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons… in the beginning men were made like God, free from suffering and death, and that they are thus deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest…”Also, “it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming “gods,”and even
Report Post »GWest
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 6:16pm@lightfighter…to become sons of the Highest.”
Report Post »Hippolytus (AD 170-236)”Now in all these acts He offered up, as the first-fruits, His own manhood, in order that thou, when thou art in tribulation, mayest not be disheartened, but, confessing thyself to be a man (of like nature with the Redeemer,) mayest dwell in expectation of also receiving what the Father has granted unto this Son…The Deity (by condescension) does not diminish anything of the dignity of His divine perfection having made you even God unto his glory.”
In 347, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria and participant in the council of Nicea, said:
“the Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods….just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through His flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life…[we are] sons and gods by reason of the word in us.”
“For as Christ died and was exalted as man, so, as man, is He said to take what, as God, He ever had, that even such a grant of grace might reach to us. For the Word was not impaired in receiving a body, that He should seek to receive a grace, but rather He deified that which He put on, and more than that, gave it graciously to the race of man.“He also states that Christ ”became man that we might be made divine.”
GWest
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 6:19pm@leftfighter Augustine(AD 354-430) considered one of the greatest Christian Fathers, said
Report Post »“but He himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying He makes sons of God. For He has given them power to become the sons of God, (John 1:12). If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.”Jerome (AD 340-420) described the deification of believers as an act of grace, which matches the LDS understanding precisely:“I said ‘you are gods, all of you sons of the most high.’” let Eunomius hear this, let Arius, who say that the son of God is son in the same way we are. That we are gods is not so by nature, but by grace. “but to as many as receive Him he gave power to becoming sons of God” I made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods. We are called gods and sons!…[Christ said] “all of you sons of the Most High,” it is not possible to be the son of the Most High, unless He Himself is the Most High. I said that all of you would be exalted as I am exalted.“Jerome goes on to say that we should ”give thanks to the God of gods. The prophet is referring to those gods of whom it is written: I said ‘you are gods’ and again ‘god arises in the divine assembly’ they who cease to be mere men, abandon the ways of vice an are become perfect, are gods and the sons of the most high…”
GWest
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 6:22pm@leftfighter These “arrogant and shocking” doctrines were clearly held by early Christians!They pulled these beliefs from the Bible itself.This view of the early Christians’ doctrines is not unique to Mormons. Many modern Christian writers have recognized the same doctrines. If you don’t wish to embrace these ancient doctrines, that is their privilege, but you cannot logically claim that such doctrines are not “Christian.” One might fairly ask why modern Christians do not believe that which the ancient Christians insisted upon?
Report Post »GWest
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 6:32pm@leftfighter”… but only that sick freak knows for sure if the girls he slept with were pubescent or not.”
Report Post »There is no question that Joseph Smith was capable of producing children by Emma. It is logical to assume that if Joseph had intimate relations with many other women, that there would be evidence of pregnancy and children. The focus of critics is primarily on Joseph’s sealings to women who were married to other husbands, since having a child by any of the previously single women to whom he was married would fall within the expected scope of plural marriage.The available evidence, however, does not support the claim that Joseph had intimate relations with married women. Fawn Brodie, who repeatedly stated her belief that Joseph had intimate relations with many of his plural wives, identified several individuals that she thought “might” be children of Joseph Smith, Jr. Yet, even Brodie noted that “it is astonishing that evidence of other children than these has never come to light.” Brodie postulated, in spite of a complete lack of evidence, that Joseph must have been able to successfully practice some sort of primitive birth control, or that abortions must have been routinely employed.Brodie does indeed identify some specific individuals whom she claims are likely to have been the progeny of Joseph Smith. These individuals are examined, along with a comparison of Brodie’s claims against modern evidence.
GWest
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 6:34pm@leftfighter
Report Post »Some people have concluded that Helen did have sexual relations with Joseph, which would have been proper considering that they were married with her consent and the consent of her parents. However, historian Todd Compton does not hold this view; he criticized the anti-Mormons Jerald and Sandra Tanner for using his book to argue for sexual relations, and wrote:
“The Tanners made great mileage out of Joseph Smith’s marriage to his youngest wife, Helen Mar Kimball. However, they failed to mention that I wrote that there is absolutely no evidence that there was any sexuality in the marriage, and I suggest that, following later practice in Utah, there may have been no sexuality. (p. 638) All the evidence points to this marriage as a primarily dynastic marriage.”
In other words, polygamous marriages often had other purposes than procreation—one such purpose was likely to tie faithful families together, and this seems to have been a purpose of Joseph’s marriage to the daughter of a faithful Apostle. Critics who assume plural marriage “is all about sex” may be basing their opinion on their own cultural biases and assumptions, rather than upon the actual motives of Church members who participated in the practice.
Cavallo
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:21pmI’m not mormon, so I can’t judge what they might find uncomfortable. I don‘t live with mormons so it doesn’t matter to me what they might find offensive. I do not impose my standards on them, as long as they do not impose their standards on me. We can live free and seperate from each other.
Report Post »unwillingchild
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:30pmI do not in ANY way condone the COWARDLY action of the guy. What he did was WRONG and far worse than her technical violation of the BYU Honor Code (skirt too short). Having said that, BYU is a private school and students must sign the Honor Code and agree to abide by it. So the LDS church isn‘t imposing it’s views on anyone. If they don’t want to abide by the Honor Code, they can take their tuition dollars elsewhere.
Report Post »Right_on_the_Left_Coast
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:33pmI know a lot of Mormons, and a few of my close friends are Mormons. None of them would find anything wrong with this attire. In fact, I’ve met a number of Mormons who dressed much more provocatively then this. A couple of local Mormon churches even put on teenage dance events. It was never super risque or anything, but many of those Mormon girls were dressed to kill.
Report Post »LegionOfOne
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:56pmI AM Mormon, and there is nothing offensive in her dress style in any way, shape or form. And she has all three going for her, which is probably what made him uncomfortable. The fact that he couldn’t even stay there and say it like a man is pathetic on his part. What a degenerate.
Report Post »YellowFin
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:03pmLegion,
You are right, the boy is a coward by not giving his “counsel” face to face.
Report Post »Rickfromillinois
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:18pmI’m sure that she can find a burkha somewhere.
Report Post »jaxson
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 6:46pmthats exactly what i thought, didnt mormons and muslims both get “seperate books” from the same angel Gabriel also, and then theres the poligamy thing they both have in common, then theres all the boinking going on in heaven they have in common, and mormons and muslims have the non biblical “prophets” in common….i mean the list just goes on and on when one stops and thinks about it…..i have lived in the same house for over 20 years in a town of about 1000 people, and every summer the mormons come to my house knowing i am christian trying to convert me to mormonism, seemingly trying to convince me being a bible reading christian isnt good enough…i am offended after 20 years of this b.s that men knock on my door to convert me with “mans words” joseph smith, they always have a book of mormon, and not Gods words “the bible”…
Report Post »martinez012577
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:17pmWell this isnt a shocking at all really. The Mormon faith uses things like the way you dress or what you drink to control their sheep. The girl is beautiful, the guy I am guessing had some lustful feelings towards her and is blaming her. What a loser.
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:31pmYou could be a little more bigoted – but I’m not sure how.
The LDS Church has standards for dress, but the members are free to choose to follow or not.
The whole idea is – the closer you adhere to the leaders’ councils, the happier you will be.
There is nothing sinister nor controlling about that.
Many people have a testimony that is true, not because they were told to, but because they found out for themselves.
This young man may be a little on the prudish side, but he is allowed to make mistakes and learn from them.
Don‘t criticize the whole church for one man’s actions.
At least the LDS Church has standards, unlike most other churches I’ve been to. Sorry if that offends you, I call it like I see it.
Report Post »american_rose_126
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:31pm“The girl is beautiful, the guy I am guessing had some lustful feelings towards her and is blaming her. What a loser.”
EXACTLY!!! (I don’t hold with the rest of your comment…though I’m sure there are churches/denomination mormon or otherwise that are more about control than faith and freedom. I’ve run into a few–but I stay away from those types of churches! I love Jesus!!! Period.)
Report Post »GoodStuff
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:34pmIt’s because Mormonism is based on man-made legalism, and “works-righteous” salvation instead of Biblically-based Grace.
Report Post »urrybr
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:36pmWe’re not sheep, in the way that you are using the word; as a derogatory statement, but we are sheep and Christ is our Shepherd. So I guess, in a way, thank you. Mormons definately have their agency to act for themselves. We just believe in following the counsel and teachings of Jesus Christ and HIS prophets. Thanks for noticin’.
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:37pm@AMERICAN_ROSE_126
Does Jesus have standards? Or is simply “I love Jesus” all that is required?
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:51pm@GOODSTUFF
That is a false statement.
Latter Day Saints ABSOLUTELY believe in grace; It is ONLY by grace we are saved
The works are an expression of our belief.
“Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” James 2:17
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:11pm@brother_ed says:
“The Mormon Church has standards.”
…but apparently none of them have anything to do with checking the insane scribblings of polygamist pedophiles against God’s Word.
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:38pm@LEFTFIGHTER
You mean a polygamist like Moses or Jacob?
Report Post »P8riot
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:53pm@Brother_ed – no I think leftfighter was talking about Abraham? lol – I‘m sure the people who lived in biblical times who didn’t believe people like Abraham, Moses, and Jacob were prophets had the EXACT lines as leftfighter has about Joseph Smith. As the song goes – we thank thee oh God for a prophet to guide us in these latter days!
Report Post »GWest
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:57pmNo one is more Christian than Mormon bashers just bring up the subject and they‘ll tell you every time how you aren’t and they are, because they’re…
“Born again free from sin
Report Post »never gonna have to work again
got that plastic fishy on my car.
Beat my kids and beat my wife
thats alright its eternal life
cuz Ive been saved from sin.
Yeeeehaaaah!”
brother_ed
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 3:10pm@P8RIOT
I stand corrected…didn’t mean to miss Abraham – silly me!
I am thankful everyday for the council of the Church. I can see the difference it has made in my life, and so can the people around me.
It saddens me that evil is good, and good is evil – but we are in the latter days, so it is to be expected.
Keep your shoulder to the wheel…
Report Post »GeorgieBaby
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 3:51pmAnti-Mormonism is equivalent to Anti-Semitism. I find it hypocritical that evangelical christians support and defend Israel, and decry Anti-Semitism yet at the same time exhibit and practice the same hatred, spread lies, and vitriol toward Mormons as Muslim extremists do toward the Jews.
Report Post »martinez012577
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 4:29pm@george
Well since you bring it up, the reason some evangelicals are “anti-mormon” is we feel you lead Christians away from the Jesus Christ and God of the Bible. Evangelicals do not believe God was once a man, we dont believe Jesus and Satan are brothers, and we dont believe in any way that we can become gods like the Mormons believe. We believe those things to be ideas promoted by Satan to trick people looking for Christ to believe in a false god.
If Mormons are right, as a evangelical I will go to a lower tier of Heaven maybe a tier with the Muslims. If evangelicals are right, Mormons join the Muslims in Hell. Its something to think about.
Report Post »P8riot
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 4:54pm@Martinez – “If Mormons are right, as a evangelical I will go to a lower tier of Heaven maybe a tier with the Muslims. If evangelicals are right, Mormons join the Muslims in Hell. Its something to think about.”
Its amazing that you came to your religious beliefs based on a risk/benefit analysis… I came to my knowledge that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is 100% true through sincere study and prayer. After reading the Bible and the Book of Mormon, the Holy Ghost has testified to me that they are both true testaments of Jesus Christ. After sincere prayer to know if Thomas S. Monson is indeed a living prophet, the Holy Ghost testified to me that he is. After sincere prayer to know if Joseph Smith truly saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in that miraculous vision, the Holy Ghost testified to me that he had. After sincere prayer to know if Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, the Holy Ghost testified to me that He is.
Martinez, I know from your posts that you believe what you say. However, I ask you what if… what if you found out that God has restored the fullness of his Gospel to earth once again and speaks to the world through a living prophet just like he did in the Bible? Would there be anything more marvelous in the world? What if you found out that there is more scripture of Jesus Christ to read? What if you found out that Jesus Christ himself leads His church on Earth once again? What would you do?
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:27pmMartinez;
“Well since you bring it up, the reason some evangelicals are “anti-mormon” is we feel you lead Christians away from the Jesus Christ and God of the Bible. ”
I agree. TheEvangelicals who go postal on mormons “feel” but they don’t think. In fact I’d say thinking as so adamantly void to Evangelicals who preach againstthe Mormons. Time nad time again Mormons make clear and poingnant answers totheir attacks and yet they repeat the same attacks against Mormons over and over again. You’re a prime example. For instance:
“Evangelicals do not believe God was once a man”
First an foremost, you do, absolutely, 100% think that ‘God was once a man’. So do Mormons. What you don’t think is that the Father was once a mortal man. But, as I myself have told you before, neither do the Mormons. There is NO OFFICIAL LDS DOCTRINE that teaches that the Father was oncea mortal man who lived on another planet. None. Zilch. So not only is there a lack of thinking in your statement regarding what Evangelicals believe, but you falsely repeat the same live that Mormons believe in a ante-eternal mortal Father. We don’t. Period. It’s more important to you to declare your Christianity by bearing false witness against your neighbor than it is to learn what Mormons actually believe.
So, who’s leading who away from the Jesus of the Bible?
(con’t)
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:42pm(con’t)
“and we dont believe in any way that we can become gods like the Mormons believe”
Another example. More than once I’ve shown you inthe bible where this is possible. Deification even used to be part of early Christianity. In fact, Bishop Athanasius, who lead the fight in the nicene Creed which officially declared the “Holy Trinity” wasa big advocate of man becoming like God through the Son and that’s strikingly similar to what Mormons believe. My main point is that this is biblical and you seem void of capacity to register this in that God-given gift of your called a brain.
As for Jesus and Satan being brothers, what’s unbiclical about that? We believe Jesu and the Father and the Holy Spirit are “One Eternal God. The Book of Mormon even says as much. So what’s the hang up of believing that God (the Father) created all things, even Jesus and Satan?
“If Mormons are right, as a evangelical I will go to a lower tier of Heaven maybe a tier with the Muslims.”
If Mormons are right then all children of the Father (that’s every human being) will have the opportunity to learn of Jesus Christ and accept Him through covenant. If they do not accept Him than that is done by their choice alone. If Evangelicals are right, Muslims, Mormons, and the vast majority of African, Chinese, East Indian, even little children, are going to Hell. Now *THAT’S* “something to think about.”
Report Post »P8riot
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 6:15pm@MARTINEZ012577 – that’s called “getting owned” by DARREN! lol
@DARREN – watch, everything you just said will blow right over his head and he’ll cut and paste another anti-mormon comment. Some people are simply not ready for the milk, let alone the meat.
Report Post »martinez012577
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 8:51pm@p8riot
I didnt come to my beliefs based on risk vs reward. I know in my heart because I have prayed about it many times that I believe in Jesus Christ of the Bible as my lord and savior. I have also prayed for my friend who I have mentioned here a couple of times who is a Mormon. I am worried about his salvation. I am worried about all Mormons salvation. I believe God put my friend in my life for this reason. There has been a burden in my heart to talk to Mormons about their faith and try and lead them back to the Bible and only the Bible. Its all you need.
Report Post »martinez012577
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 9:22pm@darren
LOL I must respond since according to p8riot I “got owned”
You say over and over again its not “official LDS doctrine” yet it was spoken by your prophets. Its very conveinent to be able to go ignore or delete them from the doctrine that is incorrect or not ok for the time period.
If Paul had said in a sermon that men live on the moon, or that blacks are cursed, or polygamy is the only way to heaven then I too would want to change the books. Problem for Mormons is that the writers of the Bible and prophets of the Bible where men of the one God the God from the Bible.
What is funny as many Mormons (p8riot) on these very threads have defended the idea that men can become gods. Well if men from earth can become gods then their are mulitple gods according to the Mormons. If you believe that you DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE GOD OF THE BIBLE!!!!!!!
Maybe I have been wrong in one thing. Maybe there is two sects of Mormons. Ones who truely believe that there is only one God, that God wasnt a man on another planet, and that men cannot become gods. That sect of Mormons I would say is Christian. Then there is the other sect, this is the delusional sect that believes they will through good works become a god and have goddess wives and populate their own planet. This sect includes my very dear friend who lives in Colorado and p8riot.
@p8riot
You were saying?
Report Post »martinez012577
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 9:38pm@darren
Sorry didnt see your Cont.. part.
Here is my I could careless about the Nicene Creed stuff. I do not believe God would allow his one book on earth to be ruined by men. That book isnt from man, therefore it cannot be destroyed by man.
On to Jesus and Satan being brothers. Well see this can be viewed two different ways, one is God made everything we are his creations. Fine I will buy that. Problem is that isnt what the Mormons mean. God created Jesus and Satan with his goddess wives. They were his first sons. This is the idea I disagree with. The Bible is pretty clear that we are not his sons and daughters till we accept Jesus Christ and become his. We are adopted, so we dont inherit his God powers.
See all of these crazy ideas tie together. You cannot have one without the other. I admit it is finely put together. I looks legit, the problem is I dont believe Joesph Smith saw God. I believe he was visited by Satan.
As far as the Hell stuff goes, yes I believe there will be alot of people in hell. I believe that if you do not believe in Jesus Christ you will burn in eternal hell. Jesus shows himself to everyone, there is no excuse.
Report Post »TEWMINATOR
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 10:08pmBro Ed… I think you are being duplicitous. “We know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” II Nephi 25:23. Don’t forget your 3rd article of faith! “We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. Christians believe that it is thru faith alone you are saved….
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 11:27pm@TEWMINATOR
I actually had to look up ‘duplicitous’…and I’m still not sure what you mean.
If I was unclear, let me reiterate.
We are saved by Grace only. I take that to mean that God will save whom he wants to save.
I believe that our works are a reflection of our faith. Works are a natural part of faith, but they alone are useless.
I believe that someone who says, “I believe in Jesus, therefore I am saved” is fooling themselves, unless they also produce the fruits of faith (works). It is the same for someone who does good works, but doesn’t believe. The two (works & faith) go hand in hand.
I believe Jesus taught us, through His example, how to behave. I believe He expects us to be like Him. We wont be able to, which is where mercy and grace come in.
I‘m sorry if I was being ’deliberately deceptive’, I wasn’t trying to be.
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 12:54amMartinez;
“You say over and over again its not “official LDS doctrine” yet it was spoken by your prophets.”
That is correct, I do say it. What are prophets but mortal men with the iherent lmitations of mortal men, including knowledge. I prophet may speak asa prophet but he may also speak, and act, accorting to his mortal existence. The best biblical example i can think of is Moses being corrected by his father-in-law, ” 17 And Moses’ father in law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good.” (Exodus 18). Also, wadsn’t Peter wrong to say that he knew not Jesus? Finally, do you honestlythink that everything Peter, James, John, and the Lord’s other apostles, thought and believed were written in the Bible? If they were then we’d be lugging around a Bible as thick as the (former) Sears Tower is tall. Yikes!!! thy doing missionary work under that condition.
There si a process which a doctrine (teaching) become official LDS canon. And “Mormon Doctrine”, “HJournal of Discourse”, “History of the Church” etc. have never even began that process and I don’t think they ever will. For official LDS doctrine on theology, thy the following link. It’s safer than guessing from journals or discourses which you (nor I) often have no idea what the contxt are.
http://www.lds.org/scriptures?lang=eng
(con’t)
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 1:02am(con’t)
‘LOL I must respond since according to p8riot I “got owned””
Cuz you did get owned. Tell me, if a an Evangelical child was born on the same day in Japan as an Buddhist child and they both grew up being charitable, good to others, etc. They both died at let’s say the age of seven. Will God save the Evangelical child and thrust the Buddhist child to Hell? Do tell.
“If Paul had said in a sermon that men live on the moon, or that blacks are cursed, or polygamy is the only way to heaven then I too would want to change the books.”
Or, that those words would never make it to the bible since they were not part of any known eternal truth God wanted us to know and because said declarations reflected only his person view on those topics, not God’s eternal truth to the world.
“Problem for Mormons is that the writers of the Bible and prophets of the Bible where men of the one God the God from the Bible. ”
No problem. Mormons worship the same God and their prophets are from the same God of the Bible.
“What is funny as many Mormons (p8riot) on these very threads have defended the idea that men can become gods.”
So did Jesus and I’ve shown you as much on different front page threads. Yet you continue to repeat the same line that Mormons are false Christians because they believe that man can become like God. (And “like” does not mean “equal to”).
(con’t)
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 1:10am(con’t)
I’ve also shown you where Jesus himself said we *are* gods yet that apparently has not been cognitively recorded anywhere apparent along your cerebrum.
“Well if men from earth can become gods then their are mulitple gods according to the Mormons. If you believe that you DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE GOD OF THE BIBLE!!!!!!!”
That’s your logic, not Biblel doctrine.
“Maybe I have been wrong in one thing. Maybe there is two sects of Mormons. Ones who truely believe that there is only one God, that God wasnt a man on another planet, and that men cannot become gods.’
for the love, sir, Mormons do not believe that God lived on another planet. Go to the source I provided for you two posts ago and show me where it is taught that God lived on another planet. In fact, i’ll do some ofthe legwork for you:
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg?lang=eng&letter=g
Feel free to peruse all the topics about “God”. Let me know when you found the teaching that God lived on another planet. such has no part inthe LDS faith or worship. So, yes, we do agree that you have been wrong; just not for the reasons you express.
“Then there is the other sect, this is the delusional sect that believes they will through good works become a god and have goddess wives and populate their own planet”
There is NOTHING official that teaches that Mormons will populate hteir own planets.
(con’t)
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 1:18am(con’t)
“@p8riot
You were saying?”
‘
He said, ‘@DARREN – watch, everything you just said will blow right over his head and he’ll cut and paste another anti-mormon comment. Some people are simply not ready for the milk, let alone the meat.” You, sir, proved P8triot blatantly correct and you have repeated the very things I have shown you are not correct. You feel but do not think. Thisihas become so typical with the Evanglelical-style ammo against Mormons. They accuse, accusations are refuted and the very same accusation is repeated. And this is Christian?
“Here is my I could careless about the Nicene Creed stuff.”
You should for the result of it has been a departure from biblical doctrine to Hellentistic philospophy. You will not find “Holy Trinity” or “same substance” anywhere in the Bible. And the [art I sposted to you, about Bishop / St. Anathasius, shouldf interest you. That’s a direct historical evidence, and you previously cited archeology as ‘proving” the Book of Mormon is false so I’d assume you have at least a passing interest in history, which shows what Christians richly believed: that man may become like God through the son. “God became like man so that man may become like God” is a very accurate summarization of early Christians.
(con’t)
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 1:28am(con’t)
“I do not believe God would allow his one book on earth to be ruined by men. That book isnt from man, therefore it cannot be destroyed by man.”
Then I guess it’s a good thing the Mormons believe the Bible to be the word of God, eh?
“God created Jesus and Satan with his goddess wives.”
Really? Here, please show me where that it taught:
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/god-creator?lang=eng&letter=g
“They were his first sons.’
That is correct.
“The Bible is pretty clear that we are not his sons and daughters till we accept Jesus Christ and become his. We are adopted, so we dont inherit his God powers.”
Here’s from a revelation given to Job of the “foundation ofthe world” (that’s befor mortal existence): ” 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the acorner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (Job 38). These are sons because God created them, plain and simple. Becoming the “sons of God” through accepting Jesus is part of our deification.
“See all of these crazy ideas tie together.”
Yup I put them together nicely, didn’t I?
(con’t)
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 1:32am(con’t)
“the problem is I dont believe Joesph Smith saw God. I believe he was visited by Satan. ”
Yes, he was visited by Satan: “15 After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.
16 But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into bdespair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.
(con’t)
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 1:39am(con’t)
” 17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, estanding above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My fBeloved gSon. Hear Him!”
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng
I think since Joseph Smith felt the power of the adversary and then the resence of God, he should know far better than you or I the difference of the two. But as Jesus said,those who believe “without seeing” are more blessed than those who believe because they see. By the power of the Hoyl Spirit both you and I can know for ourselves that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God and we can know this “without seeing” what Joseph Smith saw.
“Jesus shows himself to everyone, there is no excuse.”
Really? So, you’d say that ost ofthe chinese that have ever lived have “seen’ Jesus? How so?
Report Post »martinez012577
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 1:54am@darren
Well find me a false teaching from one of the apostles. Find a prophet telling a prophecy saying God told them something would happen and it didnt. Let me save you some time, it doesnt exist. The Bible is God’s word.
Honestly I dont care how you pick your cannon, but from a outsiders view it looks like you pick it when public outcry gets to loud (polygamy, blacks, men on the moon, spirit babies and so on).
As far as me getting “owned”. I didnt.
As for your questions, I do believe God will save both children because they are not able to understand God and the choice that they would need to make.
Your next paragraph made no sense to me, sorry.
See, like I pointed out earlier. If you are one of the Mormons who do not believe they can become a god and that God was once a man on another planet then yes you may very well be worshiping the same God as I am ( the one from the Bible). But if you do believe you can become a god and you do believe God was once a man, then I am sorry you dont. My God the one from the Bible is the only God, the all powerful God. Yours sadly is the same god that came to visit Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (SATAN).
Wow you Mormons are wordsmiths. Like and Equal? Really. We both know exactly what I am talking about. Mormons believe through works will be exalted to become a god. This is what p8riot and my friend both believe. Do you?
Continued..
Report Post »martinez012577
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 2:06amcontinued..
Yes you have shown me that verse. I in turn have shown you clearly that during that time, judges of life and death were called “gods”. Did you read the whole verse, its clearly talking about judges and they judgements. Oh and again how many “gods” have the next verse happen?
“I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High
But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler.”
This was a passage to lead judges in matters to not get to high on themselves that yes they deal with life and death but ultimately they will “DIE LIKE MERE MEN”.
Look i understand you have been tricked and its hard to debate the words in the Bible. You can take half a verse and twist and turn it however you like, but the fact remains you will not become a god and God was never and will never be a man.
I believe in the holy trinity, one God three forms IE. ( water, vapor, ice ) all the same thing different forms.
Joseph Smith (”King Follett Discourse,” Journal of Discourses 6:3-4, also in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 342-345):
“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret… It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know…that he was once a man like us….
continued..
Report Post »martinez012577
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 2:10am@darren
continued..
Here, then, is eternal life – to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves,… the same as all Gods have done before you…”
Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses 7:333):
“He [God] is our Father – the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted being.”
Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses 3:93):
“The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like himself.”
Milton R. Hunter (The Gospel Through the Ages, p 104):
“Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar that through which we are now passing. He became God – an exalted being – through obedience to the same eternal Gospel truths that we are given opportunity today to obey.”
Bruce R. McConkie (Mormon Doctrine, 1966 ed p 250):
“…God…is a personal Being, a holy and exalted man…”
Joseph Fielding Smith (Doctrines of Salvation 1:10, 1954, cited from 21st printing 1975):
“God is an exalted man. Some people are trouble over the statements of the Prophet Joseph Smith … that our Father in heaven at one time passed through a life and death and is an exalted man…”
OH AND DONT BOTHER WITH THE NOT OFFICIAL CRAP!!! ITS YOUR PEOPLE SAYING THIS.
Since I know you will say it, my challege still stands from above. Find something
Report Post »martinez012577
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 2:27am@darren
Yes I found it on the internet and I am copy and pasting because I dont feel like writing a novel tonight.
The point of all of this is, Mormons believe God was once a man. You also believe you can also become a god. With those two beliefs you are not worshiping the same God and Jesus Christ that are in the Bible. Say the name Jesus over and over again, write it down 1000 times, nothing changes the fact that with those two beliefs you have created a false god.
Oh on a earlier note to who ever said it, elephants and mammoths are not the same, also mammoths went extinct 7000 to 10000 b.c. Remember, with science they can tell when sometime was around, where they ever horses in the Americas I am sure, they just were not around when the BOM said they were. On the “prove stuff from the Bible nonsense” I dont need to do that, you believe the Bible already. Its your book that is fake, not mine.
I dont need to say who got owned. I will just say, prove the apostles were said things like your prophets did. Prove to me in the Bible that you will become a god using the whole verse and not Mormon snipits of verses vaguely saying something. Prove to me using the Bible that God was a man using the same ground rules.
Want me to save you time? Its not in there. The choice is yours my friends. Remember, if evangelicals are right, you arent just dealing with your own salvation, think of your childrens. Are you willing to bet their salvation on it?
Report Post »GWest
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 3:31am@Martinez
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father, Matt. 5:48 (3 Ne. 12:48).
Report Post »Is it not written in your law that ye are gods?, John 10:34 (D&C 76:58).
We may become heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, Rom. 8:17
Thou art a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ, Gal. 4:7
When he shall appear, we shall be like him, 1 Jn. 3:2
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me on my throne, Rev. 3:21
To them have I given to become the sons of God, 3 Ne. 9:17
Those who inherit the celestial kingdom are gods, even the sons of God, D&C 76:50, 58
Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, D&C 132:20
GWest
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 3:35am@Martinez
Report Post »God said, Let us make man in our image, Gen. 1:26
man is become as one of us, to know good and evil, Gen. 3:22
This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, Matt. 3:17 (Matt. 17:5; 3 Ne. 11:7).
not mine to give, but … of my Father, Matt. 20:23
not as I will, but as thou wilt, Matt. 26:39
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Matt. 28:19 (3 Ne. 11:25).
called the Son of the Highest, Luke 1:32
Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove, Luke 3:22
Son can do nothing … but what he seeth the Father do, John 5:19
Father that sent me beareth witness of me, John 8:18
I and my Father are one, John 10:30
believe the works … that the Father is in me, John 10:38
a voice from heaven, saying, I have … glorified it, John 12:28
my Father is greater than I, John 14:28
that they might know thee the only true God, John 17:3
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, John 17:21 (D&C 35:2).
I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, John 20:17
being by the right hand of God exalted, Acts 2:33
saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, Acts 7:55
not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, Acts 17:29
even his eternal power and Godhead, Rom. 1:20
to us there is but one God, 1 Cor. 8:6
Christ, who is the image of God, 2 Cor. 4:4
I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord, Eph. 3:14
image of the invisible God, the firstborn, Col. 1:15
dwelleth all the fulness of th
GWest
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 3:43am@Martinez
Report Post »Please use the Bible to prove the doctrine of the Trinity. Please prove using the Bible that one doesn’t need to be baptized. Please prove using the Bible how God is all merciful, wise, and just, and how anyone who dies never having heard the gospel of Christ is going to hell. I’ll same you some time, its not there.
GWest
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 3:49am@MartinezLook
“i understand you have been tricked and its hard to debate the words in the Bible. You can take half a verse and twist and turn it however you like, but the fact remains you will not become a god and God was never and will never be a man.”
Twist away.
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father, Matt. 5:48 (3 Ne. 12:48).
Report Post »Is it not written in your law that ye are gods?, John 10:34 (D&C 76:58).
We may become heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, Rom. 8:17
Thou art a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ, Gal. 4:7
When he shall appear, we shall be like him, 1 Jn. 3:2
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me on my throne, Rev. 3:21
GWest
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 4:04am@martinez
“OH AND DONT BOTHER WITH THE NOT OFFICIAL CRAP!!! ITS YOUR PEOPLE SAYING THIS.”
You’re imposing and absolutist assumption on the Mormon Church.Because you might have inerrantist beliefs about scriptures or prophets, don’t assume that we have similar views.Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.Mormons do not believe that prophets and apostles are incapable of error,despite being called of God and receiving revelation. Joseph Smith himself taught that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.The Church has always taught that its leaders are human and subject to failings as are all mortals.Only Jesus was perfect.
Report Post »GWest
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 4:14amContinued…
Report Post »A prophet‘s inspiration doesn’t involve a suspension of their natural faculties,it doesn’t even make them free from earthly passion; it doesn’t turn them into machines,it left them men.Therefore we find their knowledge sometimes no higher than that of their contemporaries.Paul’s accounts even contain a contradictory account of his vision (Compare Acts 9:7 & Acts 22:9). Paul and Barnabas disagreed severely enough for it to disrupt their missions Acts 15:36–39. Peter and Paul also criticized the other’s writing 2 Peter 3:16 and behavior regarding the Church Galatians 2:11–16.Moses disobeyed God’s instruction to speak to the rock and instead hit it. He then attributed the miracle to himself and Aaron, saying, “Must we fetch you water out of this rock?” He was chastized by the Lord afterward. (Numbers 20:)Joshua was deceived by the inhabitants of Gibeon when they claimed to come from a far country so they could get a peace accord with Joshua. Then the Israelites found that instead of living a long distant away,that people from Gibeon lived among them. (Joshua 9:)Gideon repeatedly asked the Lord for signs even though the Lord has said, “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign.”(Judges 7:; Matthew 12:39)Nathan told David that the Lord approved of his desire to build a temple, and that he should commence the project.The Lord later told Nathan that such was not His desire, and that he was to tell David that the temple would be built by a
GWest
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 4:18amcontinued…would be built by another. (2 Samuel 7)Jonah felt some personal prejudices against Assyrians, to the point of expecting the Lord to give them fewer blessings than to Jews. (Jonah 4:1) Brigham Young felt some personal prejudices against blacks, to the point of expecting the Lord to give them fewer blessings than caucasians.Jesus’ apostles were not always perfectly humble or modest. They once disputed over which of them would be the greatest in heaven. (Mark 9:34) Joseph Smith was not always perfectly humble or modest. He once said he had “more to boast of than ever any man had”.A person could spend all day looking for examples of the Lord’s chosen servants making mistakes, but such an activity does nothing to edify or strengthen people. In all of these situations, a prophet’s weakness or mistakes do not make him any less a prophet, called of God to do His work.The prophets are not perfect, but they are called of God. They may speak as men, but may speak scripture as well. Every person may know for themselves whether they speak the truth through the same power that their revelation is given: the power of the Holy Ghost.
Report Post »P8riot
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 2:14pm@Matinez – First Darren – Now GWEST – Martinez, you just got owned again! Do they have to split ownership 50/50? lol.
Anyhow, you stated “Find a prophet telling a prophecy saying God told them something would happen and it didnt. Let me save you some time, it doesnt exist. The Bible is God’s word.” – in the same way you don’t understand the prophesies of the Prophet Joseph Smith, many people believe that there are many biblical prophecies that never came to pass… seriously, wikipedia has a whole page devoted to it namely:
The success of Joshua
The destruction of Tyre
The protection of the King of Judah
The length of Babylonian exile
The death of the king of Judah
The death of Josiah
The land promised to Abraham
The fate of Damascus
The fate of Jews who stay in Egypt
The return of Jewish prisoners of war
The strength of Judah
The identity of the conquerors of Babylon
Jehoiakim prophecies
and they go on. I disagree with many of their interpretations, just like I disagree with your interpretations of Joseph Smith’s prophesies.
Seriously Matinez, how many times can you ask the same questions and be given the answer through biblical scripture and still not get it? Regardless of your interpretation of the Biblical scriptures quoted, you cannot deny that our doctrine is based on biblical teachings – even if we disagree on interpretation. What better example of the need for a living prophet in our day?
Report Post »P8riot
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 2:18pm@Martinez – you also still don’t understand our view of works…
WE BELIEVE THAT SALVATION COMES ONLY THROUGH JESUS CHRIST!
We simply understand that “faith without works is dead.” (James 2). We also understand that “not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” (Matthew 7:21). Thus, we are only saved by Christ – but through faith and by doing the will of our Father which is in heaven qualifies us for that grace.
If works do not matter, then why does Christ himself teach that a person must repent or perish? (Luke 13:3). PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION ~
Report Post »Mutiny
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 8:32pm@Gwest
Ok, I am not going to bother reading your wall of text since its quite apparent you didnt bother to read my posts.
Is it not written in your law that ye are gods?, John 10:34 (D&C 76:58).
Whos law? Oh yeah mans law said the men were gods. This again for the 1000th time you Mormons either cannot read or just to dumb to understand english. During Biblical times men who judged life and death were called “gods”. Notice the lower case. Next if you bother to read the whole verse it clear talking about judges who judge men for them to be just. The next verse is pretty key also. If I recall it says very clearly “they will die like mere men”. What god dies like a mere man.
Not every man on this earth is one of God’s children. We are adopted children after we accept Jesus Christ from the Bible into our hearts as our lord and savior. This exactly why the whole idea Mormons have that they will become gods like “their father” is ludicrous.
MORMONS LISTEN TO ME, IF YOU BELIEVE YOU WILL BECOME A GOD YOU ARE NOT WORSHIPING THE GOD OF THE BIBLE.
MORMONS IF YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD WAS ONCE A REGULAR MAN, YOU ARENOT WORSHIPING THE GOD OF THE BIBLE.
ITS AS SIMPLE AS THAT.
Do not risk bringing your children into a faith that leads them away from the Bible. That road was created by Satan and you will doom yourself and your family to hell. I do not post in anger I am posting because I love.
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 9:01pmMartinez;
“Well find me a false teaching from one of the apostles. Find a prophet telling a prophecy saying God told them something would happen and it didnt.”
It didn’t happen? Here’s two of them. And there‘s more but I’ll stick with just two. Only one will satisfy your challenge but I’ll throw in an extra for reinforcement.
” 4 Yet hear the word of the Lord, O Zedekiah king of Judah; Thus saith the Lord of thee, Thou shalt not die by the sword: 5 But thou shalt die in peace: and with the burnings of thy fathers, the former kings which were before thee, so shall they burn odours for thee; and they will lament thee, saying, Ah lord! for I have pronounced the word, saith the Lord.” (Jeramiah 34)
here we have a prophecy about King Zedekiah: a) not dying by the sword, b) dying in peace, c) haveing burnings like former kings, d) lamentation. Here’s what happened:
” 10 And the king of Babylon slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes: he slew also all the princes of Judah in Riblah. 11 Then he put out the eyes of Zedekiah; and the king of Babylon bound him in chains, and carried him to Babylon, and put him in prison till the day of his death.”
Here what happened to King Zedekiah was a) had his children killed before him, b) had his eyes ruined, c) bound and held captive until he died.
(con’t)
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 9:09pm(con’t)
Prophecy fulfilled is tha he did not die by the sword. But did he die in peace? Seeing your children slaughtered and having your eyes “put out” doesn’t seem so and there was no lamentation or kingly funerery process mentioned.
Anotther prophecy was ” 4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.” (Jonah 3:4).
Here the prophecy is clear. Ninevah would be destroyed in forty days. Period. There’s no conditions given. Here’s what happened:
“10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; cand God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.” (verse 10).
Here what was prophecied did not happenb, in fact in chapter four we read that Jonah was upset at the Lord since what was prophcied did not come to pass as prophecied. As I said, the standard is that God is in chage of the conditions by whixch prophecies are fulfilled (nor not in these cases). In no way do i judge the prophecies found in Jeremiah or Jonah as “false” prophecies and I absolutely do not judge anyone who made the prophecies as false prophets. Only that God fulfills His prophecies as He knows fit. So be careful applying Deuteronomy 18 to judge prophets as false. Donig so would categorize biblical prophets as false prophets. I would think that’s something an Evangelical would want to avoid doing.
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 9:18pmMartinez;
“Honestly I dont care how you pick your cannon, but from a outsiders view it looks like you pick it when public outcry gets to loud (polygamy, blacks, men on the moon, spirit babies and so on).”
This is where someone who is legitimately interested in knowing what Mormons believe asks how Mormons “pick their cannons”, no? Have you? Nope. You’ve only ridiculed. Here’s the process.
The prophet receives a revelation from God. He shares it with the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Tyhisi s usually 15 men. They all give their sustaining vote and here it must by unaminous. After a unaminous sustaining vote it is then presented tothe general priesthood leadership ofthe Church. After a sustaining vote from this group, it is presented before the general membership of the church for a sustaining vote. Only after this is said revelation or doctrine is considered LDS cannon and thus “official’. All official doctrines: The Book of Mormon, Bible, Doctrine amd Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, Bblacks reveiving the priesthood, “A Proclamation tothe World”, etc. have gone through this process. Ntohnig of “History of the Churhc”, ‘Journal of Discourse”, etc., have even begun this process and therefore it is best to use these sources to relfect a given person’s view of a given topic of a given settng, not “what mormons believe”.if in doubt, just ask a Mormon.
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 9:29pmMartinez;
‘As for your questions, I do believe God will save both children because they are not able to understand God and the choice that they would need to make.”
As the Book of Mormon says, “little chioldren are alive in Christ” so we are in agreement. Now, what about the billions of Chinese adults who never heard of Christ?
“We both know exactly what I am talking about. Mormons believe through works will be exalted to become a god. This is what p8riot and my friend both believe. Do you?’
Yup, I do, and that’s solidly biblical.
“Yes you have shown me that verse. I in turn have shown you clearly that during that time, judges of life and death were called “gods”. ”
Yes, I read that entire chapter but saying that these are only judges does not seem to apply Jeus’ own application of Psalms 82:6. When He said He and the father are one and thus declared as ablashpemere He was only speaking about being a judge? No, He was not. You and I know he is the true God of Isreal and the God of the Old Testament. It was Jesus Himself who said to a non believer that he was a god for he was a child of the Most High God. dismissing Psalms 82:6 as mere judges fails to support Christ’s own application of that passage.
(con’t)
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 9:36pm“”I believe in the holy trinity, one God three forms IE. ( water, vapor, ice ) all the same thing different forms.’”
The holy Trinity is the philosophy of man, period. While water, ice, and vapor share the same substance (H2O) never are they from the same source of substance. For example, if you have water, then ice, and then vapor at the same time they each have their own unit of H2O, no? Therefore applying that tothe Holy Trinity and you have three units of God, not one. Also, the mere fact that you believe the Father is God, the Son is God and the holy Spirit is God does not make you monotheistic. Henotheistic yes but not mono. The Holy Trinity makes no sense tand there is no way to explain it. most importantly, it is not biblical. I showed you two passages where declared prophecies were not fulfilled as originally spoken yet you cannot show me “Holy Trinity” ior “same substance”. Mormons can. We all believe God the Father (El Elyon or “Most high god”) is intelligence. so is Jesus and so are we. it’s just that the Father is the highest of intelligences and Jesus was created “like unto God” in Mormon theology.
And, no “like” does not mean “equal” in deification. It simple doesn’t.
kingo Folet Report, Journal of Discourse are not official doctrines, stop using them. Although “Gospel through the ages” is not official doctrine your quote is interesting.
(con’t)
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 9:44pmThe citation you posted said, ““The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like himself.”’. That’s amazingly similar to “God became like man so that man may become like God” which was a belief widly held to by Christians until about the 5th century (seventh century by eastern Christians). I shared and outstanding essay with LeftFighter regarding Christianity‘s rich history in believing that man may become like God through the Son and I’ll share it with you.
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=5&chapterID=35
“OH AND DONT BOTHER WITH THE NOT OFFICIAL CRAP!!! ITS YOUR PEOPLE SAYING THIS.’
They’re not official but they are biblical so far as your quotes refer to deification and the Bible is official LDS doctrine.
“The point of all of this is, Mormons believe God was once a man.”
No ,they don’t. You simply don’t learn, do you? Even if you did learn to not bear such false witness against your neighbor, it’s almost guaranteed that another Evangelical will come along and say the exact same things you have been. They don’t seem to learn or want to learn.
“You also believe you can also become a god.”
Yes, we believe we can become one withthe Father *as* Christ is one withthe Father and to be perfect though the son as the Father is perfect. And that’s all biblical.
“With those two beliefs you are not worshiping the same God and Jesus Christ that are in the Bible.’
See, you don’t learn.
Report Post »Darren
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 9:53pmMartinez;
“Oh on a earlier note to who ever said it, elephants and mammoths are not the same, also mammoths went extinct 7000 to 10000 b.c.”
Except in Meso America. and we only need ot sow elephantine creatures around 2,500 BC which is the only time elephants are mentioned.
“Remember, with science they can tell when sometime was around”
Yup, and that changes all the time. Saying that science is absolute is the most unscientific thing you can say.
“where they ever horses in the Americas I am sure, they just were not around when the BOM said they were. ”
Really? What testing was done to show this scientifically. It’s my understanding that horse remains in Meso America were not tested; only discarded. And who cares about what science says about horses. You have direct access to God hinself thruogh the Hoyl Spirit yet you seem entirely uninterested in using that gift. Why so? Evangelicals do not believe in denying the power of the holy Spirt. So why not? Just like you do not need archeological evidence to show king David ruled Jerusalen, you don’t need it for the Book of Mormon. You’re only renderuing that which is God unto Ceasar. That’s not how it works.
“Are you willing to bet their salvation on it?’
I don’t bet. I know God’s truth as to my salvation. I only need to do my part and rely upno the grace of God.
Report Post »GWest
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 11:48pm@MutinyOr Martinez? Two monikers eh? One more makes a Trinity.
“Ok, I am not going to bother reading your wall of text since its quite apparent you didnt bother to read my posts…This again for the 1000th time you Mormons either cannot read or just to dumb to understand english…. I do not post in anger I am posting because I love.”
Blah. Go read…or wait, continue not reading.
“Not every man on this earth is one of God’s children.”
Have we not all one father? hath not one God created, Mal. 2:10
“This exactly why the whole idea Mormons have that they will become gods like “their father” is ludicrous.”
Yup, we’re really silly, just like Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Augustine, and Jerome who all believe the same thing. But don’t read anything that they wrote, you got it all figured out through your interpretation of scripture.
Report Post »GWest
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 11:51pm@Mutiny on the SSMartinez
Report Post »“MORMONS LISTEN TO ME, IF YOU BELIEVE YOU WILL BECOME A GOD YOU ARE NOT WORSHIPING THE GOD OF THE BIBLE.”
I worship the God of Abram the most high God, Gen. 14:19 who is the God of the spirits of all flesh, Num. 16:22 (Num. 27:16). Whose voice was heard from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, Matt. 3:17.The God whom Jesus Christ spoke of when He commanded all men to Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father, Matt. 5:48The same God of Jesus told to pray to,Matt. 6:9 (Luke 11:2; 3 Ne. 13:9). The same God that reveals all truth,Matt. 16:17.The same God who Jesus Christ prayed to in the garden of Gethsemane Matt. 26:39. John 17:21.The same God who so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, John 3:16.The same God that sent Jesus Christ and testified of Christ, John 8:18.The same God who Stephen saw on the left side of Jesus Acts 7:56.The One God and Father of all, who is above all, Eph. 4:6
“MORMONS IF YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD WAS ONCE A REGULAR MAN,”
There is no Doctrine stating that. You let me know all about chief. It has no bearing upon salvation, but have at it.
“YOU ARENOT WORSHIPING THE GOD OF THE BIBLE.”
Now you’re just being ironic. You keep worshipping a God who damns a man, woman, or child to hell who has never even heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ let alone the name Jesus Christ.
GWest
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 11:56pm@Mutiny on the SSMartinez
“Do not risk bringing your children into a faith that leads them away from the Bible.”
Just pray that you may be filled with the Holy Ghost that he will reveal truth to you and that you may be filled with charity, which is the perfect love of Christ.
“That road was created by Satan and you will doom yourself and your family to hell. I do not post in anger I am posting because I love.”
Yeah, love… we all feel the fruits of the spirit whenever an Evangelical is present, lots of…love coming our way. Thumbs up Evangelicals, thumbs up, keep preaching that truth with love.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:16pmShoulders covered – check.
Dress at the knees – no
Neck covered – no (last I checked showing your neck was not against Mormon religion)
Bare legs covered – check
Boots covering legs – check
What is this boy’s problem. If he is getting aroused from that picture, then the problem is with him not her. Get yourself checked mister. You need to pray long and hard on this. She is dressed modestly as far as I am concerned. What does he want a burka?
Report Post »maxedout
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:16pmThat’s provocative??????….com’on…………
Report Post »AlansTigg
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:14pmsounds to me like that boy has some repression issues if that outfit has such a negative effect on him and threatens his moral safety….that being said the skirt is short of the knees and therefore a violation of the dress code, albiet mildly
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on February 18, 2012 at 5:33amYes, the glimpse of a hint of the outline of that brazen harlot’s kneecaps discernible through her thick leggings excited that poor innocent boy’s mind to base and impure thoughts. Instead of enjoying the peaceful sleep of the just, he would lay awake at night feverishly tossing and turning in the throes of his fervid obsession with those provocative patellae that incited in him such licentious longing. Finally, in desperation, oppressed by the shame of his salacious desires, he had no choice but to petition her for mercy, to beg that she grant him surcease from overwhelming temptation. And what did she do? She mocked him! She ridiculed and japed and made sport of him. She disparaged him and cast him as a pathetic prude, woefully unprepared to go forth into the normal world where normal women will be allowed to display their nearly naked knees with unfettered wantonness.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:11pmO_o . . . . I see nothing provocative at all.
Report Post »Jenny Lind
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 7:06pmDon’t like the code, don’t sign it and go to a different college where you can flaunt it when you want to. Simple, easy, CHOOSE!
Report Post »