ChristianForums banned Christ.

[ThankYouJesus]

Feeling a wee bit paranoid, are we?

feels good to let it out though.. ahhhhhhhhhhhhh

oh your new.. welcome aboard and please come in the threads and join us.. so much fun and truth..

 

[no avatar]

Certainly. No one was forced into it. And when this Kingdom becomes the world governement no one will be forced into it.

The meek will truly inherit the earth. If you do not acknowledge such then you will not live to see it. Not because any mortal will effect your death but simply because the earth will burn and remove all from this life who are not humble. You do not understand the Council of Fifty and so you make it the object of your paranoid conspiracy theories. I straight up tell you that it is the intent of God's Kingdom on Earth to become the government of all the Earth. But such will not be effected like any other theocracy, or psuedo-theocracy, that's been set up by men.

You really, really can't believe some of the stuff you are saying, I'm sure.

So, you've never heard of the Danites? the Avenging Angels? the Whistling Whittling Brigade?

Nobody was forced into it.

 

[Mustard Seed]

When it's done because of a political position. She advocated equal rights for ALL people, not just those the Utah sect's hierarchy approved of.

Thankfully the authentic Mormons are not so dictatorial as the the heretical cultus from Salt Lake City. Btw, which group does the Smith family belong to? Who owns Kirtland? Temple Lot?

Well actualy a great number of Smith's family are coming back into the Chruch. And it's prophesied that many will, if not all, return of their own will. The Temple Lot is divided 'mongst several sects. Kirtland Temple is owned and well maintained, but those who keep it don't know what it's for.

Finaly I think that when you think democracy is threatened because a church expells people for going against issues that are BOTH theological and political that you really have no true knowledge of what a democratic system is. People are free to chose, but they cannot divorce their actions from their consequences. Your view would vindicate the likes of the Dixie Chicks who had the erroneous notion that their free speach was threatened when they bad mouthed a popular president in a foreign land. You really need to double check the distinctions between cause and effect and freedoms and the lack thereof. If a church killed a disenter THEN you would have a case for anti-freedom/anti-democratic rant. But such is not the case.

 

[Skipper]

The ads are to help pay for TOL, and yes it's true that if you don't want to be exposed to the adds you can do your part to support TOL by opening your wallet.

Ok, look at the logic of what you are saying...

1. Pay me money to help support a good cause.

2. If you don't pay money to support the good cause, you will be sent advertisements showing where to find "hot gay singles".

 

[Nathon Detroit]

2. If you don't pay money to support the good cause, you will be sent advertisements showing where to find "hot gay singles".

Haven't we already told you twice that we add objectionable links to our "do not display" list as we see them?

Is that not good enough for you?

 

[Mustard Seed]

You really, really can't believe some of the stuff you are saying, I'm sure.

So, you've never heard of the Danites? the Avenging Angels? the Whistling Whittling Brigade?

Nobody was forced into it.

The danites are a group that anti-Mormons view the way UFOLIGISTS view the references to the sons of God and the Nephalim (sp?) in the Bible. They feel that it confirms their preconceptions as to the 'nepaharious' nature of their make believe boogie men. I'm well aware of the danites and the other such groups. I however keep them in context as to what they really were and the fact that they no longer exist in anything but the imaginations of post-rationalist anti-Mormons.

Your paranoia makes me wonder how you view the masonic connections of the Founding Fathers of this nation.

 

[Lighthouse]

And by the way: I am a liberal Christian,

Really?!:shocked:

 

[no avatar]

The danites are a group that anti-Mormons view the way UFOLIGISTS view the references to the sons of God and the Nephalim (sp?) in the Bible. They feel that it confirms their preconceptions as to the 'nepaharious' nature of their make believe boogie men. I'm well aware of the danites and the other such groups. I however keep them in context as to what they really were and the fact that they no longer exist in anything but the imaginations of post-rationalist anti-Mormons.

Your paranoia makes me wonder how you view the masonic connections of the Founding Fathers of this nation.

Your denials make me wonder if you have a grasp on reality.

I don't need to believe in boogiemen to know that the Avenging Angels had a two-fold purpose, only one of them being to "protect" the people. In fact, that is probably the lesser function (especially since the had the Nauvoo Legion prior to Joseph Smith's murder). The greater function was to keep the Saints in check.

And they don't need the Avenging Angels today. The church membership in general takes care of that duty. The minute someone states that they are leaving the fold, the ostrasization starts.

 

[Evee]

Would you believe ChristianForums is still down Folks? Oh well every day that goes by makes this board more interesting.
Fun too. No atrol: not as much anyway.

 

[Freak]

:crackup:

And by the way: I am a liberal Christian,

Then you are going to eternal hell.

and I do know my Scripture very, very well.

You fooled us.

 

[UberLutheran]

:crackup: Then you are going to eternal hell.

Oh, I see. One is justified by which political party one belongs to, or if one is a conservative Protestant who obeys all the rules -- not by grace, through faith.

We are either justified by grace, through faith, or we are justified by observing the Law to the letter -- but not both. Read your Galatians. Also read Romans 2 and 3.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Your denials make me wonder if you have a grasp on reality.

Your view makes it apparent you lack such. You are nigh in the realm of post-rationalist anti-Mormonism.

I don't need to believe in boogiemen to know that the Avenging Angels had a two-fold purpose, only one of them being to "protect" the people. In fact, that is probably the lesser function (especially since the had the Nauvoo Legion prior to Joseph Smith's murder). The greater function was to keep the Saints in check.

They were to protect the leadership of the Church. Joseph didn't destroy the press in secret, he didn't quietly kill anyone, he openly shut down the press and compensated the owners of the press with market value of those objects lawfully destroyed. Joseph could have laid down far more force and far more effectively smashed any inward dissention if that had been his aim. He ejected those from the Church who had revolted from the doctrine, he only attempted to silence them when they endangered the welfare of those under his care. There's a difference between peacefull discent and disagreement and inciting open violence against others outside the bounds of the rule of law.

And they don't need the Avenging Angels today. The church membership in general takes care of that duty. The minute someone states that they are leaving the fold, the ostrasization starts.

Ostrasization is inherent in the human condition whenever anyone turns against a community they've been a part of. The only reason for the accute results was because those that turned from it would often start to fight it. In such a case any defense by the community could be considered by one such as you as a form of ostrasization. They didn't put people under house arrest or torture them or do anything against them beyond the scope of the law. Certainly there were those who turned to vigilantyism but those who did were punished for their revolt against the rule of law. To say that we are a theocracy still, simply because conflict or disconect appears in moments of seperation, is inane and irrational. That's like saying that the scientific community is taking away someone's freedoms by refusing to allow them to publish papers in a scientific journal after that person has sworn an oath against ever using the systems proscribed by the journal for publication. You are just being an irrational anti-Mormon in these assertions. Like many of the liberals of today you take something that's acceptable to you in some circumstances and then make it unacceptable simply because someone you dislike is engaged in the same thing (ala wiretaps).

 

[Skipper]

Haven't we already told you twice that we add objectionable links to our "do not display" list as we see them?

Is that not good enough for you?

Keep up the good effort.

But since I saw three of them on my first day here, it doesn't seem like it is working to well.

 

[no avatar]

Your view makes it apparent you lack such. You are nigh in the realm of post-rationalist anti-Mormonism.


They were to protect the leadership of the Church. Joseph didn't destroy the press in secret, he didn't quietly kill anyone, he openly shut down the press and compensated the owners of the press with market value of those objects lawfully destroyed. Joseph could have laid down far more force and far more effectively smashed any inward dissention if that had been his aim. He ejected those from the Church who had revolted from the doctrine, he only attempted to silence them when they endangered the welfare of those under his care. There's a difference between peacefull discent and disagreement and inciting open violence against others outside the bounds of the rule of law.


Ostrasization is inherent in the human condition whenever anyone turns against a community they've been a part of. The only reason for the accute results was because those that turned from it would often start to fight it. In such a case any defense by the community could be considered by one such as you as a form of ostrasization. They didn't put people under house arrest or torture them or do anything against them beyond the scope of the law. Certainly there were those who turned to vigilantyism but those who did were punished for their revolt against the rule of law. To say that we are a theocracy still, simply because conflict or disconect appears in moments of seperation, is inane and irrational. That's like saying that the scientific community is taking away someone's freedoms by refusing to allow them to publish papers in a scientific journal after that person has sworn an oath against ever using the systems proscribed by the journal for publication. You are just being an irrational anti-Mormon in these assertions. Like many of the liberals of today you take something that's acceptable to you in some circumstances and then make it unacceptable simply because someone you dislike is engaged in the same thing (ala wiretaps).

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. :bang:

It would probably surprise you to find out who I am and what church I spent most of my life in, fully understanding the truth of history yet maintaining a faith in the restoration that couldn't be shaken by any "fact" that came to light. I was able to grasp the truth about what happened in those formative years of the church and have a faith that wasn't built on false premises. The one thing that bothers me is people who feel they need to sugar-coat everything in order for it to be palatable, especially to themselves. If you ever looked the truth in the face, you would probably not be able to stand the sight of your own church.

God recently drew me out of the restoration (Praise His holy name!), but that doesn't make me an anti. I am not any more anti today than I was a year ago, even though I no longer believe in the church. I just am/was not ashamed to look the truth in the face. You should be so noble.

 

[Lighthouse]

no avatar-
Mustard Stain is a Mormon, and very argumentative. Not to mention, he barely makes any sense. That is why we have the ignore function on TOL.

 

[ThankYouJesus]

too funny.. mustard stain.. rotfl:

 

[Evee]

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. :bang:

It would probably surprise you to find out who I am and what church I spent most of my life in, fully understanding the truth of history yet maintaining a faith in the restoration that couldn't be shaken by any "fact" that came to light. I was able to grasp the truth about what happened in those formative years of the church and have a faith that wasn't built on false premises. The one thing that bothers me is people who feel they need to sugar-coat everything in order for it to be palatable, especially to themselves. If you ever looked the truth in the face, you would probably not be able to stand the sight of your own church.

God recently drew me out of the restoration (Praise His holy name!), but that doesn't make me an anti. I am not any more anti today than I was a year ago, even though I no longer believe in the church. I just am/was not ashamed to look the truth in the face. You should be so noble.

Do you home church?
I have learned more reading message boards than I have at most churches.
Of course you have to weed it out like you do at church.
We have to read and search for the truth in my opinion.
God puts that desire in us.

 

[no avatar]

Do you home church?
I have learned more reading message boards than I have at most churches.
Of course you have to weed it out like you do at church.
We have to read and search for the truth in my opinion.
God puts that desire in us.

I have been going to a large non-denominational church (can you say mega-church?). It's a good place. A bit larger than I am comfortable with, but the small group I am in is awesome. The leader was one of the pastors of the church for a while.

 

[CaDan]

Oh, I see. One is justified by which political party one belongs to, or if one is a conservative Protestant who obeys all the rules -- not by grace, through faith.

We are either justified by grace, through faith, or we are justified by observing the Law to the letter -- but not both. Read your Galatians. Also read Romans 2 and 3.

Uber!

 

[Evee]

I have been going to a large non-denominational church (can you say mega-church?). It's a good place. A bit larger than I am comfortable with, but the small group I am in is awesome. The leader was one of the pastors of the church for a while.

Thanks, I am more comfortable in a small church and sunday school class too.