Defiantly Wearing a Non-White Shirt – A Personal Introduction

Thanks Big Al. I feel you brother. You are wearing what sounds like some comfortable shoes. A little stinky, maybe. But comfortable, nevertheless. Next EQ lesson just have everyone make fandango puppets. Works like a charm.

Once when I was the bishop’s executive secretary and sitting in bishopric meeting we were discussing the obedience levels of various wards members. I remember the bishop stating that, “so and so doesn’t wear white shirts and that that was a sign of rebellion.”

I bristled at the statement because although I wore the regulation white, I hated it.

But to me it’s a case of trying to have your cake and eat it too. On one hand you can’t claim that church members are not part of a cult where even their clothing is regulated, but then claim on the other hand that when they fail to wear the regulation clothing they are automatically apostate.

Hey Big Al! I look forward to your blogs as and Elders’ Quorum teacher. I too am an EQ teacher, and was just reprimanded by my EQP for using “supplemental” material in my most recent lesson. To me, it is the most frustrating thing to have to keep getting “milk,” and the minute we try to introduce meat, the letter of the law believers slap it out of our hands. Thank goodness I have a wife with whom I can discuss the “meatier” and complex matters of our history and faith.

I left the LDS church because of all its ridiculous rules and laws. I am very sympathetic to Big Al, brother I know all too well how frustrating it can be trying to live as a Mormon to please your wife when all the time deep inside you feel there’s so much false doctrine.

Greg and Holly,

I very much enjoyed you’re “voices” and what they shared.  

Holly, thanks for the “my mother was a small angry force of nature.”  I immediately hit the pause button and enjoyed a short memory visit with my own mom who could fit that bill.

Thanks also for “if the Church disappeared … I would still want to understand my own life.” 

And thanks also for the Larkin “strike” at the end.  In that moment you could have been channeling my sister.  I need to give her a call … its time to have a few laughs together.

JT

This guy is lying. He doesn’t speak like he was a mormon. His terms and subject matter, and how he tells his story reflect that he has fabricated most of this narrative. I think Heather needs to corroborate this story with 3rd party witnesses. His conclusions about how to determine truth are contradictory, and carry assumptions that the bible is true, and can be trusted. I have talked with evangelicals who cover all the same points. I predicted most of his story as I was listening to him. I suspect that he is lying for Jesus. And that he sees this as a worthy cause to lie, like Joseph Smith thought it noble to lie about polygamy for Jesus.

Threeburg…

If you think that Andy is lying, you obviously haven’t been where he is. Some of us have. And your first comment. “This guy islying”, doesn’t jibe with your later “. I am not attacking him either. I don’t care that he is preaching agaisnst mormonism.”

A few thoughts on your criticisms. “. He doesn’t speak like he was a mormon. His terms and subject matter, and how he tells his story reflect that he has fabricated most of this narrative.”

How so? He does speak like a Mormon. He tells of FHE, Seminary, Youth Conferences, all the same things that I experienced. His father’s experience was exactly like mine, I was converted as a twelve year old who was placed in a Mormon Foster Home. His praying to get a testimony at that Conference is like many others (even General Authorities) who did the same thing. The fact that he doesn’t say that the Bishop and Stake President were harsh, (rather they were quite the opposite), speaks to his truthfulness. Even his polygamy experience is similar to mine. I actually had a similar experience, except that it was in 1977, and it was about the blacks getting the priesthood.

My best friend and myself were standing on his porch a few months before the revelation, and I told him that I felt that God had told me that the blacks were going to be allowed to hold the priesthood. We knew about Young’s stipulation that all the children of Abel would have to get it first, but we both still felt like this would be overruled. It is not a hard leap for Andy to have had a similar experience with polygamy.

His thoughts about the millennium were also in line. Many of my friends shared their blessings with me, and there were some that said they would live to see Jesus return. I remember being disappointed in my own, that it did NOT mention that, but that I would come out of the grave at his coming. But that gave me the expectation that I always had as a member, that the Millennium was not far off.

Andy is telling of his experience from a different viewpoint now. Of course, he has interjected some thoughts into the narrative from his current perspective. This is normal, and it would be more troubling if he DIDN’T do that.

And verification? Really? To get someone to talk about their adultery? Many are not comfortable with such a thing, and it wouldn’t give him any more “credence” to some, because they would just find something else to criticize.

Your statement about Blood Atonement is really naïve. You say, “Blood atonement is an old old teaching and I have never known any mormon no matter how TBM to actually consider that an option”. Actually, Gary Gilmore did, in 1977. And blood atonement was discussed in Utah, and in the rest of the country because of it. I actually worked at a Holiday Inn in Provo with a guy who had been held up by Gilmore, and escaped with his life. The story was fascinating.

Your list, “His story has been told in a way to bring out all the weeknesses in mormonism from the biblical christian perspective…you can’t trust your feelings; don’t trust emotions or powerful experiences; one false prophesy means you’re not a prophet; blood atonement; Joseph Smiths lies. He admits to knowing about blood atonement, and Joseph Lying to Emma about polygamy, but this doesn’t trouble him, instead he is
troubled by Josephs false prophesies?”

He wasn’t troubled about Smith lying to his wife, because he got an exact “revelation” to do the same thing, and he knew Smith himself justified it that way. Many Fundamentalists I spoke with in Utah when I was investigating Adam-god felt the same way, and many had left the SLC branch with the exact same logic. I was heavily recruited by one group, and they used this argument. Smith himself used it, and it is in the History of the Church:

If you do not accuse each other, God will not accuse you. If you have no accuser you will enter heaven. WHAT MANY PEOPLE CALL SIN IS NOT SIN; I do many things to break down superstition, and I will break it down. HC 4:445 (June 7, 1841)

He was a TBM at this time, while his statements on Smith’s prophecies, were after he had started the questioning the church.

And I had the exact same dilemma in my experience, with having a “witness” about the Priesthood Reversal, and Brigham Young’s Adam God teachings, which were the major reason that I left the church after my mission. I knew then that I could not trust my feelings, or the process of Mormon verification of truth. And Andy never gives the impression that polygamy is “common”. Only the fact that it was still a doctrine of the Church and would be practiced in the Millennium, which I was also taught.

Andy’s story resonates with me, because I also had the same experience in trying to get my leaders (and some authorities I met with) to explain it. I got the exact same treatment. I was also told that it wasn’t something to worry about, that it didn’t really matter. It did to me. I knew Young was a false prophet, because he taught that Adam was God and said it was a revelation. This was never adequately explained to me, and caused me to question my entire experience, the same as Andy.

And his story is ABOUT his exit from Mormonism, which makes itself “look cultlike”. Your statements of “This guy is lying.’, ‘His story is a great strategy,’ ‘It’s clearly contrived’, all show that you are the one “contriving” here, and seem to be able to know for certain when someone is lying. Must be great to be you, and to have such power. But your obvious TBM status and bias shows this to be a great exaggeration on your part.

@ThreeBurgesses
ThreeBurgesses, I am going to try to leash in my sarcasm, because your post was so full of ignorance that’s it’s tempting to just let it out for a romping frollick. However, that would be both unkind and unfair so I will do my best here . . . please forgive me if I relapse.
First, and respectfully, may I politely suggest that if you’re going to address Biblical Theology that you first find out what Biblical Christians actually know and believe? In other words, “Ask don’t tell.”

Do you really think that we’re shocked by anything in your post? Do you you really think that we’re ignorant of the Hebrew names of God? Do you really think that we’re shocked by any of the passages that you’ve cited or are ignorant of them? Do you really think that we haven’t had these discussions with many a Mormon before you?

Do you really think that Bart Ehrman is addressing issues that haven’t been discussed, dissected, and debated over the 300+ year history of Higher Criticism? If so, think again. Ehrman has merely popularized and repackaged them for a new and increasingly cynical generation undergridded by skepticism.

Think again.

But enough editorial comment – let’s boogie!

YOU WROTE
“As far as Believing in Many Gods, The bible is the best source for that doctrine. The first mention of God in the bible in the Hebrew is Elohiem. Which, if translated honestly is a PLURAL noun. Yes, GodS.”

MY RESPONSE
I’m shocked! Shocked I tell you! Whoa!!!! They’ve been translating it WRONG for all these years??? Whoa!!!!
(oops, relapsed already – sorry, I’ll leash myself back in now)

No, ThreeBurgesses, the honest translation is “God” when referring to the God of the Bible.

While it’s true the word takes a plural form and can be translated “God” or “Gods” it was and never has been understood or translated “Gods” when referring to the Jewish God throughout history unless to do so would be contextually in error or other considerations.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim#God_of_Israel.2C_with_singular_verb )

The key touchstone and defining text for the use of Elohim, like so many other things in Judeo-Christendom, is the Shema:

“Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God — the LORD alone.”
– Deuteronomy 6:4

Or transliterated:

In English: “hear-you Israel Yahweh Elohim-of·us Yahweh one”

In Hebrew: “shmo ishral ieue alei·nu ieue achd”

And the last word “achd” (aka “echad”) means “united one”

So in the Shema we are given a picture of ONE God, who is both, united and plural.

In other words, the Trinity.

As Ken Samples notes well:
“The central purpose of the Shema is to proclaim the truth of monotheism (belief in only one God). Historic Christianity readily affirms this doctrinal truth since the Christian faith builds upon ancient Judaism and is clearly a monotheistic religion in its own right.

4) There are a number of places in the Old Testament where God is spoken of in the plural (Genesis 1:26-27; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8). These passages also allow for God’s three-in-oneness, revealed more explicitly in the New Testament. Therefore, the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity is compatible with the ancient monotheistic Shema. In fact, later Christian creeds built upon the truth of Israel’s creedal statement.”
(see http://www.reasons.org/theology/creeds/israels-creed-shema-part-5 )

YOU WROTE
“It also denotes masculine and feminine.”

MY RESPONSE
That’s correct. So far so good . . .

YOU WROTE
“So it means the GODS male and Female created the earth.”

MY RESPONSE
And right off the tracks you go with your conclusion.

The fact that God is presented as BOTH male AND female in the Bible is hardly a surprise – all you have to do is read it:

God is usually characterised as male in Biblical sources, except: female in Genesis 1:26-27,[5][6] Psalm 123:2-3, and Luke 15:8-10; a mother in Hosea 11:3-4, Deuteronomy 32:18, Isaiah 66:13, Isaiah 49:15, Isaiah 42:14, Psalm 131:2; a mother eagle in Deuteronomy 32:11-12; and a mother hen in Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_God#In_the_Hebrew_and_Christian_Bible )

However, that doesn’t mean that God has gender, it merely means that He uses gender as an analogy to describe one of His attributes in a way that gender-based humans can understand.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_God#In_the_Hebrew_and_Christian_Bible )

Your conclusion is a corruption of both the text and the author’s original intent and meaning. It is pure eisogesis – the act of putting meaning into a text where it is not there.
(see http://idontknownuthin.com/wiki/index.php/Eisogesis_objection ; retrieved 2011-05-11)

YOU WROTE
Then next the snake in the garden tempts Eve that she can be as the GODS and can know good and evil.

MY RESPONSE
And of course, we can believe everything that the serpent said in Genesis 3:4&5 can’t we? He also said that they wouldn’t die:

‘“You won’t die!” the serpent replied to the woman. “God knows that your eyes will be opened as soon as you eat it, and you will be like God, knowing both good and evil.”’

YOU WROTE
“Then, Psalms 82:6 say that “ye are gods, yea, children of the Most HIgh.”

MY RESPONSE
Oh if only had a “Twenty” for every time I’ve been over this one with Mormons . . . I’d be too rich to be doing it again!

However, Martin Jacobs has already done a superb article on this passage so I will simply refer you to it…
http://martinofbrisbane.blogspot.com/2011/05/psalm-82.html

…and I will only cite from his summary conclusion for the sake of brevity (although I do recommend the entire article):

“…when the God turns up in the assembly of the lesser Gods, He does not like what He sees, and he pronounces judgment on them. No longer are they given the privileges of deity, they are effectively cast down into the human realm, where they will die like humans (Verse 7). They might have it good for a while, like the eponymous prince of the Psalm, but their days are numbered. Empirically, we know this to be true, because who today worships Zeus, or Apollo, or Baal, or Ashteroth, or any of these pagan tribal deities? They starved to death when their followers stopped feeding them with their sacrifices. For all intents and purposes, they have “died”.

The Psalm also speaks of a perspective that is foreign to us in our modern context; that the upholding of human justice has cosmological implications. Today, we tend to view morality as a question of personal choice, or preference. In the Psalmist’s view, the failure of the “gods” in upholding justice threatened the very fabric of the universe, and only the intervention of the God could save the world from oblivion.”
(source = http://martinofbrisbane.blogspot.com/2011/05/psalm-82.html ; retrieved date of post)

YOU WROTE
“Jesus then quotes that scripture to the Jews when they accuse Jesus of making himself equal with God. THat’s in John Chapter 10.”

MY RESPONSE
John 10:34-36 to be precise. But again, you err. To quote from David A. Reed and John R. Farkas

“Rather than testifying to the plurality of Gods, Jesus was here making a contrast. He was contrasting himself with those who were called gods in Psalm 82. The Jews listening were familiar with the psalm and knew that the word of God was spoken against those individuals who were thus referred to. The point Jesus made, in effect, was ‘If individuals like that can be called ‘gods,’ how can you object to my saying I am God’s Son?’ He was not teaching polytheistic theology.”
(David A. Reed & John Farkas, “Mormons Answered Verse By Verse”; Baker Book House, 1992; p.75; http://books.google.com/books?id=VoDAuHnjBJYC&pg=PT43&lpg=PT43&dq=john+farkas+ye+are+gods&source=bl&ots=KALXSERGe7&sig=2DcxqG-bSgWG_At9XOrrJTTC7YA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TiXxTtWnO4Xg2QWki8SpAg&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)

So let’s look at what God (big G) says to those so-called gods (little g) in Psalm 82 shall we?

Psalm 82 (NLT)
1 God presides over heaven’s court;
he pronounces judgment on the heavenly beings:
2 “How long will you hand down unjust decisions
by favoring the wicked?

3 “Give justice to the poor and the orphan;
uphold the rights of the oppressed and the destitute.
4 Rescue the poor and helpless;
deliver them from the grasp of evil people.
5 But these oppressors know nothing;
they are so ignorant!
They wander about in darkness,
while the whole world is shaken to the core.
6 I say, ‘You are gods;
you are all children of the Most High.
7 But you will die like mere mortals
and fall like every other ruler.’”

8 Rise up, O God, and judge the earth,
for all the nations belong to you.

And as Martin points out in his excellent article, the term “gods” has double meaning here – it also refers to the corrupt Jewish Judges (who were of course human) who were not exercising justice toward the poor and the orphans whose cases they had been given stewardship.

Sorry. No polytheism here ThreeBurgesses. No henotheism. Just the real ONE true God of Israel denouncing the MANY false gods of the earth along with their servants: unjust judges.

YOU WROTE
“Then in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 Paul says that there are many gods in Heaven and earth, though he does say that to us there is but one God, and one Jesus.”

MY RESPONSE
I Corinthians 8:5&6 says:

“1 Corinthians 8:5-6 (NLT)
There may be so-called gods both in heaven and on earth, and some people actually worship many gods and many lords. But we know that there is only one God, the Father, who created everything, and we live for him. And there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom God made everything and through whom we have been given life.”

And I noticed that you took the passage of out context in order to support yet another case of eisogesis. So let’s add in the preceding and following verses:

“1 Corinthians 8:4-7 (NLT)
” 4 So, what about eating meat that has been offered to idols? Well, we all know that an idol is not really a god and that there is only one God. 5 There may be so-called gods both in heaven and on earth, and some people actually worship many gods and many lords. 6 But we know that there is only one God, the Father, who created everything, and we live for him. And there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom God made everything and through whom we have been given life.

7 However, not all believers know this. Some are accustomed to thinking of idols as being real, so when they eat food that has been offered to idols, they think of it as the worship of real gods, and their weak consciences are violated.

In context Paul is clearly comparing and contrasting FALSE “so-called gods” against the one TRUE God of Israel.

YOU WROTE
“Mormonism believes in one true monotheistic God…

MY RESPONSE
ThreeBurgesses, that’s nonsense! Mormonism is clearly henotheistic:

“Christianity has taught monotheism from its foundation, the belief in the existence of one God. Mormonism believes in the existence of a plurality of gods. According to Mormonism, there are an infinite number of planets like earth in the universe, each with their god or gods who were once men who have evolved into godhood. Mormon theologian and Apostle Bruce McConkie states, “[A] plurality of gods exist . . . there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods.”{3}

YOU WROTE
“… but that God has an infinite number of manifestations.”

MY RESPONSE
Now I’m beginning to wonder if you even understand LdS Theology. Please refer to the citations from Bruce R. McConkie and Josepsh Smith in the Pat Zukeran article above. Sorry NOT it’s “an infinite number of manifestations”, it’s an infinite number of gods.

YOU WROTE
“While the “biblical” Christian God has only three manifestations.”

MY RESPONSE
That statement reveals that you not only have no clue about Mormon Theology but Trinitarian Theology as well.

Not manifestations ThreeBurgesses, PERSONS – as in three persons, one being. As in 3-in-One.

Mormon Theology is Three persons, three beings, one godhead. It’s heno-theistic, polytheism.

YOU WROTE
“So whose God is Bigger?”

MY RESPONSE
A: The eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscience One true God of Israel. In other words, YaHWeH Elohim.

There is was none before Him, or after Him.

Isaiah 43:10 (NLT)
“But you are my witnesses, O Israel!” says the LORD. “You are my servant. You have been chosen to know me, believe in me, and understand that I alone am God. There is no other God–there never has been, and there never will be.

To which I can only respond:
“Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!”
(Deuteronomy 6:4, NASB)

ThreeBurgesses you’ve been asking several times now, yet we’re still waiting for an answer to this question in regard to the correct translation and interpretation of the Hebrew word, “Elohim”: 

“How is it that the Hebrews have misunderstood their language for thousands of years and yet you, who admittedly does not know their language, understands it?”

The courtesy of an answer would be appreciated. Thanks.

Heather,

Wonderful job with this and all of your interviews so far. You’ve got a real talent for this. ME voices is a terrific complement to ME.

Thanks,

JT

In 1984, less than a block from where I was raising my family in a quiet American Fork neighborhood, my neighbor and her infant daughter were found murdered.  We later learned that Brenda Lafferty and her little daughter were murdered because God had revealed to Ron and Dan Lafferty that this was necessary to “further the work in His kingdom”.  I can’t help but believe Ron Lafferty was just as convinced as Mr. Poland that the Almighty had revealed his will.  
One day I hope it can be “revealed” to all of us that these random flashing brain impulses might be recognized for what they are and not messages from heaven. If there is one thing I might thank God for, it is that in his infinite wisdom, he allowed this country to be a “secular nation” with a “secular police force” to protect some of us from His “righteous revelations”.

Probably playing Basketball: the Mormon Blood Sport, or going to the movies.

Uhhh…… I kinda expected Andy to tell people he’d bee on our show and that they’d comment.  Seems natural to me.  It’s also a chance for ME to grow its audience.  Perhaps some of these people will tune in next week.  Sounds like a win-win to me.

No, Nor do I need to be to understand one word

No.
 
Yes

no

I have a Rabbi for a Neighbor and He agrees with me. 

Really? A real Jewish Rabbi agrees with you that Elohim (spelled Elohim, not Elohiem BTW) means that the God of Israel is actually a plurality of Gods, and they are male and female?

Which Synagogue does he teach at? I would love to converse with him and find out his reasons for believing this. The Rabbis that I know disagree most strongly with this assertion!

I too – like K girl – would like to converse with that Rabbi and find out how he can consider himself Jewish in direct contradiction to the most basic tenet of Judaism: Monotheism.

Threeburgess said:
“He is a reformed Jew. He in fact told me he sees God in everyone. ”

Response:
Of course he sees God in everyone, it is a central tenent of Judaism (and Christianity) that mankind is created in the image of God. And it is true that Reform Jews (some of them) believe in the indwelling of God within mankind…but so do Christians.

The thing is, seeing God in everyone is NOT the same thing as believing in a plurality of male and female Gods.

Reform Jews uphold the central beliefs of Judaism, one of which is God; as in one God, monotheism. It is true that they often have differing views of that one God than Rabbinic Judaism. Reform Judaism can sway from agnostic humanism to Orthodoxy while embracing God. However, it still maintains belief in only one God. Judaism is a monotheistic religion. It believes and professes only one God, as defined by the Shema. Which says, “Hear O Israel the Lord our God, the Lord is One. Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever “(Deuteronomy 6:4-9).

So Threeburgesses, does your neighbor really believe in and teach a plurality of male and female Gods?

And what is his name and the Synagogue where he teaches? I would like to converse with him.

“Sh’ma Yis’ra’eil Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad. Barukh sheim k’vod malkhuto l’olam va’ed.” http://www.jewfaq.org/prayer/shema.htm

“Reform Judaism affirms the central tenets of Judaism – God, Torah and Israel – even as it acknowledges the diversity of Reform Jewish beliefs and practices. We believe that all human beings are created in the image of God, and that we are God’s partners in improving the world.”(Union for Reform Judaism)http://urj.org/about/reform/whatisreform/

“Though central to its theology, the reform (progressive) Jewish movement has expressed a wide spectrum of views of God. One finds within the movement both an agnostic humanism and a traditional devotion to God.For example, the landmarkPittsburgh Platform declared: “We recognize in every religion an attempt to grasp the Infinite, and in every mode, source, or book of revelation held sacred in any religious system the consciousness of the indwelling of God in man. We hold that Judaism presents the highest conception of the God-idea… as the central religious truth of the human race.”"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beliefs_and_practices_in_Progressive_Judaism

“Some few Jews are ideologically secular. They may be atheists who do not believe in the existence of a god. Or they may be agnostics, unsure of whether or not God exists. Among religions, Judaism is somewhat unique in that it makes room for both atheists and agnostics to remain Jewish. It is often pointed out that there is no positive commandment in the Torah (the Five Books of Moses) requiring a Jew to believe in God. “http://www.rossel.net/Basic04.htm

“When it comes to belief, the Torah commands that Jews adhere to the laws of the covenant, which means that idolatry (the belief in many gods) is forbidden.” http://www.rossel.net/Basic04.htm　

Another fabulous job of eisogesis!  

Congratulations, you’re very good at it.

However, if the Apostles used your system of epistemology and interpretation then why did they include proof texts from the extant Bible of their day (the Old Testament) to support their arguments throughout the Bible – not to mention the very discourse that you’ve cited from?
(The discourse actually starts in I Corinthians 1:6 and ends in I Corinthians 4:17 – once again you are interpreting out of context. ) 

You see this in: 
- 1 Corinthians 1:19 where Isa 29:14 is cited. 
- 1 Corinthians 1:31 where Jer 9:24 is cited.  
- 1 Corinthians 2:9 where Isa 64:4 is cited.
- 1 Corinthians 2:16 where the Septuaguint version of Isa 40:13 is cited. 
- 1 Corinthians 3:19 where Job 5:13 is cited, and
- 1 Corinthians 3:20 where Ps 94:11 is cited. 

So apparently poor Paul was a poor unenlightened, carnal sod like myself who, “who can’t hang with the Spirit of God” and was testing all his personal revelations against the objective truth of the Bible to make sure that he was in continuity, not discontinuity with it. 

Poor unenlightened, carnal, “natural man” Paul! 

Of, and BTW, Paul ends one of the sub-points in this long discourse with these words: 

“…don’t boast about following a particular human leader.”
– 1 Corinthians 3:21

Just thought that you should know since you seem to be so enamored with that Joseph Smith, Jr. fellow! You might want to keep an eye on that.

Frankly I don’t give a flying fuck what people say in pblicnorin private. I know ME quite well and am quite confident it isn’t the way you describe. Everybody is allowed an equal voice and is equally open to praise or ridicule. Fuck ‘em if they can’t take it.

As of today, Glenn, Tom, Mike and Zilpha have contributed to more podcasts than Heather. You have contributed to far more content than I. Perhaps John is the main contributor but surely the rest of us are equally represented? You seem to love to pretend to be picked on but really, I see much more of you dishing it out than taking any heat. I really think you’re losing site of things.

You can block or unfriend me. I don’t care much. I like you but won’t be bothered by it and understand why you might do it. I have a few Christian friends, a few Mormon friends, and a few non-theists. I think a close to equal amount of each. People’s beliefs don’t bother me until they start pretending superiority for them. Lately, you have been doing that quite a bit and have gotten some heat from it from some of us who love you and know you’re better than that.

Martin not to get confrontational but exactly what more than a feeling do you have that Jesus Christ is the answer?  I searched for three years after Mormonism and found religion including Jesus to be man made nonsense.  It saved my life from misery and I have never looked back.  I ask because I sincerely wonder what or how it is that people end up believing in another story as easily dismissed as Mormonism.  Again, those who are Christians will attack like sharks at my comment, but it’s actually sincere and interested in your response.  I guess the interview for me showed how truly mentally ill people become when they envision demons and angels and god talking to them. Thanks

Very well thought out and written reply, and from a faithful believing religious person.  I stand all amazed.  And I’m serious.  Thanks

Well again, that’s good feedback. Thank you. 

However, as I noted on another post a few minutes ago, I appreciate and respect the fact that John, Heather, and Richard have never hidden behind aliases. That bespeaks strong character and integrity on their part. 

Never-the-less, you’ve given me some things to ponder and I thank you for it.