Bitch

If they haven't 'heard' us yet, they have no 'ears'…

Maybe Rush needs to go on a "I Fixed My Ears, How About You?" Tour

Profanity (In any form) is a sign of a WEAK mind !!!!

"A person suckling on the idocy of Mormonisim has no place commenting on the strength or weakness of anybodys mind."

proving the point.

Mormonism? It is a major Masonic inspired cult. They wear magick underwear because they believe it somehow has some effect upon their sin nature. They perform secret, Masonic ceremonies that only the initiated and elite and select few can aspire to. One hundred years ago, a critic of Mormonism called them the "Islam of the West", because of their teaching by Brigham Young that anyone leaving the "church" can have this sin atoned for by being killed.

Their vaunted leader, Joseph Smith, cavorted with demons and stole portions of his Book of Mormon in order to replace "problems" in the Bible. This is after he re asserted some strange Old Testament idea of polygamy, with the caveat that he could steal other men's wives to do so. He died a coward, screaming for his Masonic brothers to save him. When the Mormons were kicked out of Missouri, (there was actually a Mormon war over this with the locals and many were killed) the original place Smith believed to be their city of Zion, they were attacked by biblical swarm of locusts in Utah.

They believe in the OT Office of the Infallible Prophet, a dangerous teaching by any religious standard. They fool conservatives into thinking they are Christian by their apparent love of American Family Values yet are anything but. Their "Jesus" is a fiction of their own imaginings, not the Son of the Tripartate God, but Satan's "better" brother. They are enslaved by a need to somehow repent for the sins of their dead relatives by proxy baptism for the dead, thus their world famous genealogical archives, but this gets tricky when they attempt to baptize the dead Jews at Auschwitz as "Mormons".

How they think the actual God of the Bible smiles on all this rancor is beyond Christian reasoning.

As with Islam, they believe they will be "rewarded" in the afterlife with sexual pleasure: each man is to win their own planet and as many wives as they want. Oh, and their BOM strays beyond the Dispensational outline of Judeo Christianity with nearly humorous mythology: there is no differentiation between Old and New Covenants, no rending of the Temple Curtain at the Cross, no understanding of the difference that the dying of the OT and agreement of the NT has made on Western Civilization. Did I forget about them trying to foment war on the USA in 1859? Dangerous cult.

And yeah, Romney did nothing about gay marriage in Mass. when he was governor. Their backing of Prop 8 was only to succor the evangelicals and allay any fears about how gay marriage also opens the door to polygamous marriage.

And finally… it was Romney who started the smear campaign against Sarah Palin right after the election. Romney's operatives started working for McCain after Romney dropped out. These were the same ones who "leaked" how "dumb" she was on Africa and other things only McCain insiders would know. She had to be out of the way for him to run in 2012 and prop 8 was about getting the Christian vote on their side. Mormons in the FBI and CIA are also not a comforting thought. The funniest thing about most of them today is they believe the Da Vinci Code to be… true.

Just one example of how liars like Julie Wells operate. I will post her statement, full of lies, and then I will post the actual LDS belief on this one issue just as an example of how the truth is better than her lies.

Here is Julie's lie (by the way, I am pretty certain that Christ says not to bear false witness against others)

"They are enslaved by a need to somehow repent for the sins of their dead relatives by proxy baptism for the dead, thus their world famous genealogical archives, but this gets tricky when they attempt to baptize the dead Jews at Auschwitz as "Mormons". "

Now the correct belief. LDS believe that people, when they die, continue to exist. They have the ability to be taught the gospel on the other side and have the choice there to either accept the gospel or not. This is part of the carrying on of free will which LDS believe in. This teaching makes sense since there were millions that died before Jesus was born, so they too should have a choice about what gospel they choose. LDS are not taught to repent of the sins of others. LDS do not repent for the sins of their ancestors. The temple consists of ordinances performed, either for the living or in proxy for those that have passed on. The ordinances are either accepted or rejected by those that have passed on, as their free will continues with them in the next life. For those that have passed on, they have the choice to accept Jesus as savior, and his gospel of truth, or not. There is ultimate fairness in the LDS doctrine in that those that die before Jesus was born, those that die as babies or children, those that are born into other cultures all have a fair chance of hearing the gospel of truth and to accept it or not. How Julie Wells concludes that this obviously fair and just teaching is evil is beyond me. Most likely because Julie seems to have a hateful spirit and is obviously prone to lying.

I already showed one of your claims to be false. You need only read. As to whether I know you Julie, I know already that you have a lying spirit. Since you posted some pretty stupid and unproven things. Do you think I should get to know you better and discover even more lies about you? I know that you lied since you posted some untrue statements. You believe in the bible? How about the part that says not to bear false witness against your neighbor? You did just that. You lied. You obviously care nothing about the truth or the bible if you insist on lying as you just did.

Julie Welles Claim: Joseph Smith is not my neighbor, and neither is Brigham Young. Because of their unBiblical beliefs — let's be frank — Young and Smith both taught you could murder unbelievers

Sad little Julie. Sad indeed. I am pretty sure that Jesus made it clear that all people are to be considered your neighbors. But apparently Julie justifies lying about people because they did not live right next door to her, or perhaps not in her neighborhood.

Hey, who can argue with a person that twists logic so much to think that it is ok to bear false witness as long as you dont live right next to them. Julie has the spirit of the pharisees and saducees that used semantics and idiotic relativism to justify their unseemly behavior.

Sorry kid, but I just have to laugh in your general direction when you have such childish concepts of who your neighbor is in relation to not bearing false witness against your neighbor. Again, it just shows that you have a lying spirit and cant understand plain truth.

Now, back to your idiotic claims that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught that you can murder unbelievers. Prove it. Otherwise, you are yet another idiot child that has believed something somebody told you and you don't have enough guts or morals to check it out and prove it.

Hey Julie, still waiting for you to justify your claim that LDS are taught to repent for their ancestors. Just curious if you spew just to spew or if you were stupid enough to believe what you were taught by somebody at face value and you were too weak to research it yourself. It was your claim. It turns out to be patently false. So, prove your point or admit that you were wrong on it.

So, apparently Julie Welles new line of defense is that she can lie about her neighbors and bear false witness against them after they are dead. Hey, Julie is the gift that keeps on giving. And then there is the idea that it is ok for her to condemn an entire religion and all of its people but takes umbrage if somebody points out her personal flaws. I guess she does not believe in the do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Now, Julie, lets just deal with one of your lies at a time, otherwise we will get all over the map.

You stated that Mormons are taught that they have to repent for the sins of their ancestors. That is patently false. Now, you were saying?

First off Julie, you stated that LDS think that they have to repent for their ancestors sins. Now you are off on what individuals should do for themselves. However, dear Julie, your claim was that LDS think they have to repent for their ancestors. So, lets not do the head fake and change the key point you tried (and failed) to make.

Secondly, what happens to the millions that died before Jesus was born? Any chance for them to accept Christ or are they all written off in your book? Seems like the LDS are one of few Christian churches that provides a means for them to choose for themselves and the LDS beliefs allow for all cultures and all points in time, past, present and future.

Julie Claims: "Baptism is not necessary for salvation, as demonstrated by the thief on the Cross who joined Christ in paradise that day.

Jesus said that he needed to be baptised to fulfill all righteousness. Elsewhere Jesus states that "save a man be born of the water (baptism) and the spirit he can in nowise enter the kingdom of God.

So Jesus seems to believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, Julie and you are just wrong on this issue.

Your claim that the man on the cross was saved without baptism is simply wrong. You claim that he was with Jesus in paradise (which is correct) but as Jesus stated three days later, he had not yet ascended to his father in heaven.

So, you have no solution for that issue since you are not well learned in depth on these issues. Did Jesus go to his heavenly fathers kingdom or to another place known as paradise? Obviously if you believe in all of the scriptures and don't just cherry pick, Jesus did indeed see the sinner on the cross in Paradise. But Paradise was obviously not the same as his fathers Kingdom since three days later he told others that he had not yet ascended to his father in heaven. You are simply confusing paradise with the kingdom of heaven which are totally separate places.

And I am no more upset than you are. Are you upset? Are you angered that people call you a liar and claim that you don't speak the truth? Well, as the scripture goes, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. You attacked an entire religion based only on some stupid things that you heard and chose to believe. You have not backed up any of your claims. You just keep getting things more and more wrong. I suggest you learn the truth before you attempt to teach others. So far you have gotten most key issues plain wrong.

Dear kmichael: this was a 2 second Google:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/...

"Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon religion and its first prophet, taught that certain sins were so so serious as to put the sinner "beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ." For these fallen sinners, their "only hope" lay in having "their own blood shed to atone." Smith made clear that the shedding of "innocent blood" (including killing anyone less than eight years old, the age of accountability in Mormon teaching) was an unpardonable sin which, along with failing to keep their covenants or betraying their testimonies, could lead to eternal damnation.

In Smith's theology, the doctrine applied only to Mormons, but it was widely viewed as providing justification for shedding the blood of apostates.

Brigham Young took the doctrine of blood atonement further than Smith. According to historian Juanita Brooks, "Young advocated and preached it without compromise." Young, in an 1857 fire-and-brimstone sermon, demanded to know whether his his flock would have the courage to do what was necessary should a fellow Mormon commit an unforgiveable sin: "Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed his blood?" Some sinners, Young preached, who are "now angels to the devil" could have been saved if only some among their Mormon brethren would have "spilled their blood on the ground as a smoking incense to the almighty."

While Church leaders might have emphasized the practice of blood atonement against fallen Mormons, it contributed to the culture of extreme violence that marred the history of early Utah. The sermons of Brigham Young undoubtedly inspired his followers to commit murder, however unfair might have been the popular press's willingness to blame every violent act in the territory to blood atonement."

End Quote.

Dear KM: Somehow I missed this.

"To fulfill all righteousness" in baptism has nothing to do with "salvation", it has to do with the proper public affirmation or testimony of what God has done in your life.

The time frame of Jesus and the thief on the cross's death is summed up in by the broader meaning of "this day" as in "this day you shall be with me in paradise". Peter himself says that a "day" in God can mean a thousand years. "Day" means a dispensation. For example the "day of the dead".

Get a Strong's concordance in both Greek and Hebrew and look it up for yourself.

If your undergarments are the same as how people might wear a cross necklace, then why are they required?
Christ warned against religious traditions that add nothing to the finished work on the Cross in their practice.

And yes, I have done my research on them. Mormon traditions about their undergarments so affected the native american indians of their day that the indians made up their own "ghost shirts" that they believed were bulletproof. This is because another of the Mormon myths I failed to mention is that they believe Native Americans to be one of the lost tribes of Israel, and they took boats across the Atlantic to come to America.

Please think about the totality of what you believe, km. And then read a good, non LDS edited Bible. And then use your concordance for precise meaning. Jesus is the Word made flesh and He is revealed through our reading, indeed, feasting upon His word. This is why He said "you are pruned by my word"… It is very cool.

Bless you, km.

Just to prove how stupid and out of touch Julie Welles (hateful twisting lying bigot) is let's review her thinking process. The issue is not the specific point in question but more an example of how a kid like Julie is want to twist things, meanings, words until they finally fit her preconception.

My claim was that Jesus stated that he himself had to be baptised in order to fulfill all righteousness and that elsewhere he said that "save a man be born of the water (baptism) and the spirit he can in nowise enter the kingdom of heaven.

So Julie comes back and says that well, if that were true, the man on the cross next to Jesus was told that he would be with Jesus in paradise, this day.

I pointed out that paradise and the kingdom of heaven are obviously different since Jesus stated that he would be in paradise that day with the thief but three days later, after he was resurrected, he stated to his followers that he had not yet ascended to his father in heaven.

Ok, so this gives strong evidence that Jesus went to paradise with the sinner, that day, and three days later went to the Kingdom Of Heaven, where his father lives.

Ok, so here is Julie's brilliant thought process, in order to recover from her loss in the debate. Julie now says that everyone knows that a day of the lords time can be equal to one thousand years of our time. Ok, I will bite. Does that not give the sinner up to a thousand years to be taught the gospel on the other side and choose to be baptised, etc?

Julie is the type of so-called Christian that has no foundation of even the English language so people like her will twist the words and the meanings until they meet their preconceived notions.

And this is the Julie that is condemning an entire religion because they dont have the same strange and odd and untrue thought process that she uses.

Humans are so odd at times.

Just for honest readers, Julie's claim about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young teaching that you should kill non-believers was proven a hoax and a a fraud decades ago. But since hateful fools like Julie are prone to believe any negative thing in print, if it backs up her stupid bigotry, still exist then this idiotic debate will continue for decades more.

Here is how simple it is to follow how Julie debates. It is called a straw man argument.

Straw man argument example: Julie teaches that it is ok to kill and eat babies for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Therefore, Julie is going against Christ's teachings because she is ok with killing and eating babies.

See Julie, it is in print now. It proves that you are an evil baby killer. That is the extent of how Julie operates. She digs up age old anti-mormon literature that was proven false and bogus decades ago and treats it as though it must be true, since she read it.

Julie as one might suspect, is not very smart.

糞便を食べ、死ななければならない。

Kmichaels, I don't care what you are even talking about as I can't get past the manner in which you address people! It is venomous and plain nasty. All I can even decipher from you is name calling and character assassination. Your points are lost in it…

If you are representative of Mormon's then they must be spiteful and bitter.