Posted on 07/08/2011 9:15:31 AM PDT by delacoert
Sorry, would you repeat that? I couldn't hear over the sounds of the medium rare NY strip steak that I just grilled...
I confess..I lifted that graphic.
I try to find witty graphics and post them on a rather irregular basis. If you confess, does that mean that you well on your way to Catholicism?
And reality is exactly what they don’t want to deal with. Having been there, it is very hard to face the idea that the anti’s might be right, that the sources might be real, that their arguments might be valid.
It is much easier to let someone at FAIR/FARMS do your thinking for you and to resort to name calling and ‘proofs’ they are told in Sunday School.
Half the battle in getting someone out of the LDS church is getting them to think for themselves rather than rely on feelings (testimony) and pat responses that don’t adress the issue.
Case in point, NHM as ‘proof’ of the Book of Mormon that Resty posted earlier. No non LDS scholar or archeologist would accept it as being proof of the BoM. If you got past the first week of Hebrew class you would know that Hebrew doesn’t have vowels and NHM could be a number of words and names. But they are so desperate to grasp on to anything, because of fear that the LDS church isn’t true and they have been living a lie, that they hold on to the most redicluous things a proof.
It is hard to admit your whole life has been based upon a lie and that the perpetrators of that lie is your own church, the thing you hold most dear. The “church” is their life, not Christ for if He was, they would want the truth at ALL costs. They would take quotes like these seriously, and really put LDS claims to the test as I did.
“Finally, the Book of Mormon is the keystone of testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon...for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church.(in Conference Report, Oct. 1986, 4–5; or Ensign, Nov. 1986, 5–6 ).
“CHURCH STANDS OR FALLS WITH JOSEPH SMITH. Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who wilfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be exposed; his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false, for the doctrines of an impostor cannot be made to harmonize in all particulars with divine truth. If his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions, which would be easy to detect. The doctrines of false teachers will not stand the test when tried by the accepted standards of measurement, the scriptures.”—Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1954, vol. 1, p. 188 6.
YUM.
I have the same problem with Catholicism that I do with mormonism...I don't believe in all the rules that come between God and me.
When I do a NY strip, I dust both sides with Montreal Steak Spice and ensure that both sides are scorched, and the interior is as as red as Obama’s political heart.\
My grill is well seasoned (aka I don’t clean it) so it tastes really good. I’m wavering about doing a leg of lamb on it (sorry Elsie).
As long as we are on right side of the Lord.
We are, my FRiend.
“Part of the secret of success
in life is to eat what you like
and let the food fight it out inside.”
—Mark Twain
“I dust both sides with Montreal Steak Spice”
Amazing stuff. We put it on tenderloins we buy at Costco - better steak than I’ve had at any of the top steak houses..
REALLY appreciate your posts on this. Thank you.
Amazing stuff. We put it on tenderloins we buy at Costco - better steak than I’ve had at any of the top steak houses..
Absolutely. People don't get that they can grill as well or better than the chains and much more cheaply. And more conveniently. And without leaving their house.
p.s. when was the last time you were in Montreal?
I think you are mistaking me for somebody who cares what you think of my beliefs. Frankly I don’t have some burning need for your approval, and experience has lead me to seriously doubt that you or your like minded friends here have any intention of giving a fair hearing to anything I have to say.
I’ve stated my opinion on the ideas in the article and my reasons for those opinions. Any honest hearted reader can see that, and I’m content to let them judge between us on the basis of what is already posted here. You probably think you’ve ‘exposed’ something about my faith, but really all you’ve done is give everybody a little look into your heart, and it isn’t a pretty sight. That’s all I wanted to accomplish here.
“p.s. when was the last time you were in Montreal?”
... never. :-)
BTW, don’t burn your meat. Not good for you. Prostate cancer, etc.
“...experience has lead me to seriously doubt that you or your like minded friends here have any intention of giving a fair hearing to anything I have to say.”
I would give you an absolute fair hearing of any facts, evidence or valid logical argument that supports mormonism’s claims. I’ve asked for years. Nothing factual or convincing yet.
I would balance out any purported facts against the unBiblical teachings of mormonism.
Agreed- I think we’ve heard it all.
(Except, that is, when it comes to practicing bigamy/polygamy...and being able to sleep with a lot of women -- even 11 women still married to their husbands -- all under a spiritual guise that keeps most of the community from branding all parties involved as adulterers...or, don't you think that bigamy wasn't against the law in Joseph's time...?)
How do we know that Joseph Smith recognized bigamy laws in Illinois in 1844 when he was practicing bigamy/polygamy? Well, there was a certain publication he/Mormons put out called Times & Seasons. In vol. 5, p. 715 (1844), Smith wrote: "The law of the land and the rules of the church do not allow one man to have more than one wife alive at once..."
We also know that by 1878, Joseph Smith's nephew, Joseph F. Smith, who became "prophet" of the Lds church that announced that "...plural marriage...had been revealed to the Prophet...as early as 1832." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, p. 29)
So Smith in 1844 was announcing one standard to the Lds church & world; all while practicing another within his family & fellow leaders from whom he could not hide it.
He just kept all those women assigned to various hotel rooms in the hotel he ran; and, of course, the 11 women who were already married he could visit at will in their homes...given that Smith had sent most of them out on missionary runs...and the others who were there wouldn't care contradict "the prophet."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.