Heavenly Mother?

Heavenly Mother implied in Genesis 1.

Christian tradition is replete with referring to God as 'Heavenly Father'   Jesus instructs his disciples on how to pray.. "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name...".     So there is a natural tendency to equate God as a Heavenly Father, but what about "Heavenly Mother"?

To start we need to understand why God is sometimes referred to as "Father"..   it comes from the basic definition of 'Father' to be not only a male parent, but a 'creative, origination source'.   Similarly the word "Mother" holds the same sort of definition.. both being a female 'parent' and an originating creative source.

So what would you call a being who is like God the Father, in image, likeness and creative power, but female in persona?  a Heavenly Mother?

Genesis 1.   It's the first chapter of the Bible, and often it's the only chapter people read, and it's full of information, information that gets stepped on by 'Traditions"   So let's examine.

Genesis 1 is a narrative by a narrator, presumably Moses about "God" or 'Elohiem" translated to "God" in English translations.   The word is technically plural word for "gods", but since the verb in the sentence is singular , it's translated as a singular "God".  This narrative follows a pattern.. First we must remember it's a narrator giving a narration about "Elohiem"..  Eloheim (God) is the primary focal person in the narrative, but the narrative is by a narrator.    The pattern of the text follows the following form.. The Narrator tells us something setup of the situation,

1 In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, 2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

I choose to use the NRSV here because it was explained in a lecture by Micheal Hesier, a well known Biblical Hebrew Scholar, that the NRSV unlike many traditional English translations more accurately follows the grammatical syntax of the Hebrew.  So as you notice verses 1 and 2 are one sentence, not two sentences as you might find in a KJV.   Which means they combined form a complete thought rather than two thoughts.   The important thing to notice here is 'WHEN'..God created, there is a pre-existing conditions,  the a earth in a state of a formless void with darkness and a deep.. and Water, which the spirit of God moves across..  This is NOT the NOTHINGNESS that is so often taught by Churches who hold to a Ex-Nihlo belief.   But it's not the purpose of this blog to discuss ex-nihlo, just to point out that the Genesis text calls for some pre-existing materials at least.

Then the narrator proceeds to give us a series of Statements God utters, followed up by some actions..that either involve God participating or simply stating their occurrence.. For instance..

Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 

Now another thing I would admonish you understanding, when you read the text, remember just because something is not explained in detail of "How it happened" does not mean that nothing besides what you read happened.  And to that point.. there is a ; break between what God 'Said'.. and what the narrator tells us happened.  Just because the narrator doesn't go into detail of how it happens that when God uttered the command.. the light came to be.. doesn't mean that it just happened.   The latter is what many Churches who hold to the ex-nihlo beliefs claim is going on.. God speaks and his will just happens.   But if you pay attention to the text.. it's not making that claim at all.  The narrator just simply didn't find it relevant to the story to explain that detail, since this is a story about 'eloheim'..and what he did. 

Now to support my point.. we notice the first two verses demonstrates that God didn't start out creating in an empty nothingness.. there were things there.. Earth, the deep, and water.   And if you have taken a physics or chemistry class, you'd know light is simply electromagnetic energy, and such would have been present in the water.   But setting that little bit aside... let examine what verse 4 has to share..

 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.   

Now I ask you to ponder this for a moment.   After verse three, where God speaks and then it's reported his will became reality.. He then engages in what I see as a QA (Quality Assurance) exercise..    I develop software, and if my clients say.. Let there be a program to do..  and I create the program and it is..  the client then sees the program and tells me it's good... and I get paid.   So that's what is going on here..  God after his command was issued, now sees the results and declares them good.   If God's will was the ONLY thing involved in bringing forth the light.. what need would God have to 'See his work and declare it good?"  Wouldn't you be suggesting that God's will can error.. that he can by his very words, will something into existence that isn't good?   That just doesn't make coherent sense.. So what we have in verse four, is God validating that what ever forces are at work  (minions, angels, midi-chlorians) fulfilling his will did what he expected and he declares it good.

We see this pattern going on over and over in the first chapter.    Now sometimes God get's involved.. he issues the directive and then follows up with some actions of his own, and sometimes there are no actions.. things just are like the example of light above.  Or so it goes until verse 26.   Verses 1-25 we see God for the most part being a Solo Actor in the narrative, whether or not there are others doing his will, they aren't mentioned.  Only God is mentioned, and his is governing over this creation by himself.   This all changes when we get to verse 26..

26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

Verse 26 is totally a statement by God.  No actions.. and it's quite different than all the other statements by God thus far.. It's not only the longest statement, but it's one where he reaches out to one or more OTHERS.. When it comes to making man (humankind) he doesn't go at it alone like he was doing in verses 1-25.  He reaches out to others..  And notice that God didn't appeal to the others to help him make man in HIS Image, but it "OUR" image. These others to who he now involves are according to the text, are like God himself.. They share IMAGE an LIKENESS, and creative abilities.  So what does one call a being like God who exists in the heavenly realm who has his image, likeness and creative abilities?   obviously they aren't humans, becasue humans haven't been created.   So they must be beings that in some ways are on par with God himself..

 Now there are those who's religious beliefs immediately force them into the nonsensical assertion of blasphemy to think this, other rationalize that the others here are none other than the Trinity, but that begs the question why wasn't the Trinity mentioned in verses 1-25?   Only when it comes to making humankind..   I think the answer lies in the verse 27. 

Verse 27, is the narrator speaking, not God, and we know he is only concerned with what God does.. no one else.. and he says'

So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

Here we see that elohiem crates humankind in his image, which BTW is the same image as the US/OUR in verse 26..  And it identifies the humankind as "THEM" , male and female.  The use of the term "Them" ties this back to verse 26..  which is the "Them" which are in the image and likeness of the "US".    Now throughout the narrative. Elohiem (God) is referenced in the masculine gender..  and yet here he creates a 'female' in the image and likeness of the "US".. which suggests that at least one member of the "US" must be female.

So there you have it. .If there is a Female counterpart to God in verse 26 with his image and likeness, who participates in the making of Man, male and female,   what do you call that being other than a "Heavenly Mother"

How the Gospel of Matthew got its name.

How the Gospel of Matthew got its' name, from the lost manuscript of Theodore

In the days when the Bible was being compiled.. the friends of Theodore gathered in the lower room.. All the boys were there.. Eusebius, Alesandro Caponiski, , Michael blue eyes, Homer the homeophilis, Christophe the Robintino, Samuel the sayer, Eugene, Felix, Otis, and Nigellus. And as they gathered, the brought forth one by one the ancient scrolls that contained the words of the Lord.. And it came to pass that one scroll was brought forth, it was well written in Greek by someone who appears to know Jewish tradition, but it had no authors name attached. So they opened discussion:

Theodore: "Al, did you write this?"
Al: "I know nothing about it."
Theodore : "Sam is this you?"
Sam: "Not I, Sam I am, for I don't write while eating green eggs and ham".
Theodore: "Homie, was it you?"
Homer: "No, my schtick is with poetry"
Theodore: "Well someone wrote it.. Who?"
Mikey: "We have to give it a name. It should be someone important!"
Luigi: "How about Jesus himself?"
Theodore: "No we can't use the Lords' name in vain.. If anything in this story proves not to be accurate, that wouldn't look good, and the boss won't like it. We need some plausible deniability here, we need someone else that can be blamed if there is any inaccuracy"
Luigi: "OK, but they still need to be important like an Apostle.."
Christophe: "How about Peter?"
Theodore: "No, we already have a letters by Peter and the writing style is all wrong.. "
Otis: "How about James?"
Theodore: "James has same issue as with Peter"
Felix: "How about John?"
Theodore: "we already have a one text we are attaching John to.. We already have a john so we can't have two Johns' think of the extra plumbing.."
Eusebius: "Well I heard from someone say that there was this guy Papa Papias who said there was this guy Matthew.."
Theodore: "Matthew? Hmmm, wasn't he an apostle? We don't have a Matthew text. hmmm.. what did the Papa say? "
Eugene: "He said Matthew collected the oracles of Jesus.."
Mikey: "Matthew.. I like it."
Theodore: "OK, well this story text isn't exactly a collection of oracles, it's a gospel."
Mikey: "It doesn't matter we are just looking for a name to use."
Nigellus: "But using Matthew might not be the truth".
Mikey: "We are not looking for truth, Nigellus, were setting up a 'Tradition' , people won't know the difference. And besides most people can't handle the truth"
Theodore: "So all in favor of using Matthew say 'I'"
ALL: "Aye"
Theodore: "Ok Matthew it is.. NEXT"


And that son is how the gospel of Matthew got its' name.

CARM Pharisaical Moderation

 In a recent exchange on CARM regarding a certain nefarious youtube video produced by my brother .. I responded to a poster named Magdalena.. A ex-Mormon anti-Mormon.

 Notice I responded to three questions..  Two in the affirmative and one in the negative.. to which I followed up with explanation and two rhetorical questions.

Apparently CARM Moderation deemed my post as  'Evil Drivel' as I received the following infraction..

Dear oceancoast, You have received an infraction at Christian Discussion Forums | CARM Christian Forums. Reason: Rule 6: PG Discussions Only Rule 25: No blasphemy/insulting remarks about Christianity Rule 29:B, No links to offensive material, No links to articles with discussion or comments 41: Vocabulary: No vulgarities, obscenities, profanity, or swearing. The filter will block certain words. If a word is blocked in your posting, please edit to include a more appropriate word. Posting spaces, characters that leave the impression or meaning of profanity are still considered a rule violation. ------- Divisive and evil

Do not waste our time by posting evil drivel --

Let's recap the Rules the moderator claims I violated..

Rule 6: PG Discussions Only
      The discussion was well within PG content,
Rule 25: No blasphemy/insulting remarks about Christianity  
      No blasphemy or insulting remarks were made toward Christianity.
Rule 29:B, No links to offensive material, No links to articles with discussion or comments 
      There was no links at all.
Rule 41: Vocabulary: No vulgarities, obscenities, profanity, or swearing. The filter will block certain words. If a word is blocked in your posting, please edit to include a more appropriate word. Posting spaces, characters that leave the impression or meaning of profanity are still considered a rule violation.
      There was no vulgarities or bad language etc in the post.

As one can clearly see, there was NO violation of any of the rules stated..  It just came down to the moderator not liking the post and declaring it 'Evil Drivel'   Why would they do such a thing, UNLESS of course the post hits the bullseye on the TRUTH about CARM and it's minions..

My precious

In a recent discussion on CARM with the poster Bonnie on the admonishment of Luck 6:31 and the negativity of Anti-Mormonism. She indicated her devotion to the Anti-Mormonism and said simply

  "I will not give up my Anti-Mormonism".

Not withstanding that it strange that she seems to take ownership of Anti-Mormonism.   Quite repeatedly she and others on CARM make the claim that they ARE anti-Mormonism.  I think her comment quite telling of an obsessive behavior.

To be clear our discussion revolved around the admonishment of Christ - 'Do unto others what you would want them to do you." Luke 6:31   It is one of the hallmark teachings of Christians everywhere..

 I asked Bonnie, if she would advocate people attacking and misrepresenting her faith which is Lutheran (LCMS)..  The obvious answer is "No, she would not advocate that at all"..  simply put to say otherwise would be duplicity of mind.. A kingdom divided against itself, and yet despite he readily saying she would not want people misrepresenting and attacking her faith.. She persists in attacking and misrepresenting the faith of others namely, the LDS faith,.  

Now Jesus never attacked other faiths, instead what he was most vocal and outspoken about was Hypocrisy in his own faith.   And even when anti-Mormon is confronted with this apparently hypocrisy of behavior on her part.. she doubles down and declares she will not give up her anti-Mormonism.

I see this as a classic example of the almost drug like addiction that overcomes Anti-Mormons.  It's as if parts of their mental capacity has been short circuited and they can no longer control themselves.  They are addicted in a way.. to their 'Precious" anti-Mormonism.

The Bizarre moderation of CARM.

Infraction Received: Rule 6: PG Discussions Only Rule 25: No blasphemy/insulting remarks about Christianity Rule 29:B, No links to offensive material, No links to articles with discussion or comments 41: Vocabulary: No vulgarities, obscenities, profanity, or swearing. The filter will block certain words. If a word is blocked in your posting, please edit to include a more appropriate word. Posting spaces, characters that leave the impression or meaning of profanity are still considered a rule violation.

This is one of the more bizarre moderation I have received from CARM.. It's by no means the first, but just about the most bizarre.  Let's examine..   I'm responding to Catherine Aurelia.. You can find more about her here.. 

Rule 6 PG Discussions.   

     CARM wants to keep the forums on a PG level.. Yet nothing in my response is anything but PG.

Rule 25: No blasphemy/insulting remarks about Christianity.  

     My response is specifically addressed to Anti-Mormons, not Christiantiy.. So no blasphemy or insults on Christianity..

Rule 29:B, No links to offensive material, No links to articles with discussion or comments

As one can see, my comments have NO Links at all, let alone offensive material. 

41: Vocabulary: No vulgarities, obscenities, profanity, or swearing. The filter will block certain words. If a word is blocked in your posting, please edit to include a more appropriate word. Posting spaces, characters that leave the impression or meaning of profanity are still considered a rule violation

This really is bizarre, there is NO vulgarities in the post.. My only guess is that the CARM Moderation is a few pints short of a six pack when it comes to the meaning of some words like "Flagrant"..  which means to be brazen or shameless. 

I think its worthy to point out their  Rule 3.1 which states..

Matt Slick and Diane S. or administrators reserve the right to alter the board rules at any time necessary to administrating the forums and maintaining peace on the discussion boards. Admins do have responsibility to dealing with management issues and may have reason to use different rules than the forum guests.

Overall I think this just serves to prove that CARM has NO Rules as Matt, Diane or Carm administrators may have reason to USE DIFFERENT RULES than the guests and can CHANGE rules at any time.. Which means at their whim.  So even if you study their rules and try to adhere, they can just not like you and change the rules for no reason other than they don't like what you say.. Which is often, they simply can't handle truth.

I think what's going on here is CARM forums are dying a slow death.. the Post/View raitios barely keep up with the number of posters in a given discussion.  Every post counts as a view, every edit to a post counts as a view.  The post/view rations seems to suggest that only the few that are engaged in the dialog are actually viewing the posts of each other.   There seems to be no more than a dozen participants on the site anymore, the same names that have been there for 10 years...

So as more and more people are becoming aware of the bigotry of CARM, less and less are stopping by and that decline is scaring them.. They depend on donations.

An Anti-Mormon Rorschach test.

In 1921 Herman Rorschach wrote a book called Psychodiagnostik, which was to form the basis of the famous inkblot test known today as a Rorschach test.    In a Rorschach test the subject is presented with abstract inkblots and asked to express what they see in each image.

The general goal of the test is to provide data about cognition and personality variables such as motivations, response tendencies, cognitive operations, affectivity, and personal/interpersonal perceptions, including needs and base motives.,

In 1972 the LDS church published a FHE manual which included a graphic for teaching young children about the Jesus Christs relationship to God in contrast to our own.. It was a simple graphic as follows:

It must be emphasized that the Churches intent was to illustrate a difference in genealogy as taught in the Scriptures to a young child..

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;- Mark 1:1

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. - John 3:16

 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.  Matt 1:20-23

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.    - Luke 1:31-35

compare to a typical chart from ancestry.com

But what do Anti-Mormons see in this graphic is quite telling about the psychology of Anti-Mormonism.

In a recent dialog on CARM this was the topic of discussion.   The anti-Mormons branded the graphic as 'Utter blasphemy!' and insisted there is a sexual inference in the graphic.

Yet as any rational thinking observer can see there is no sexual reference in the graphic at all.  No pictures of genitalia, no mention of sex.. nothing whatsoever.. It's merely a genelogical graphic designed for children who would not even know what sex was.  Yet the anti-Mormon persists in insisting that meaning exists in the graphic.

one such poster on CARM that goes by the handle "Bonnie" illustrates the psychology of anti-Mormonism.  When pressed on the objective facts regarding the graphic and it's intended message, to it's intended audience she says' the following statements..

 TO AN IMMATURE LITTLE CHILD. To a young child, it wouldn't be a sexual reference at all. Because they know nothing about that yet.  

I agree that your church is trying to teach genealogy with that diagram and not about how babies are made...it is keeping it very simple for their very young minds to grasp

.
A child's eyes would see one thing in that diagram, but those looking at it through the eyes of an adult would see something more....because adults KNOW more than a little child does. …

I never said there were graphically expressed pictures of the mechanics of how the egg is fertilized, in the picture.

 I have seen what is meant by the graphic and I have acknowledged it, that it was never meant to show HOW Jesus was produced by Mary and God, only to show genealogy . I Never said that those who originally made the graphic meant anything else.

And yet she persists despite all her admissions that their was no intended message regarding anything sexual.. she contends

Doesn't matter what is "objectively" not there,

…there is the UNexpressed idea of the mechanics that PRODUCES 'you."

 adults, who know much more than children, and who have put away childish things, will see more--much more. They will also see HOW that genealogy is passed on from mommy and daddy to the child. They will see the mechanism behind it.

And I DO accept the INTENDED message of the graphic and have said so But what I am talking about is the UNintended message in the little graphic

The unintended Message?   That would be any message but the intended message.  Which would be any message that the person chooses to IMAGINE.. and it seems the Anti-Mormon imagination is fixated on sex, for even as they acknowledge there is no sexual intent in the message the insist on discussing an un-intended message about pro-creation..

about Jesus' conception--that He was begotten in the same way, of Mary and God, as we are begotten of OUR fathers

 as a mature adult I can ALSO see all the implications of that little picture, since I DO know the facts of life and how babies are made by "mommy" and "daddy" to produce "you."

 what they refuse to say plainly, I will say for them--they mean that heavenly father had a sexual union with his own spirit daughter Mary, in her flesh, so she could conceive Jesus.

What they refuse to say plainly?   LDS say what we say.. we don't plainly say what anti-Mormon cook up in their imagination despite even acknowledging the intended message was nothing of the sort..   I think this speaks volumes of the Anti-Mormon psychology.  It really doesn't matter what the objective facts are.. They will manufacture an idea in their imagination and project it at all cost trying to assert it as LDS belief..  I say that's disingenuous. A fraud and a lie on the part of Anti-Mormons.  Which reinforces my opinion that such are not really Christian.. They may call themselves Christian but they deny the very standards Christ taught.

Sex,Lies and Bigfoot

2001, Frontenac State Park, Minnesota: Church Lady Finds Tracks

Church pastor, Miss Janice Pritchett claims that she found Bigfoot tracks in the mud around the shore of Lake Pepin in Frontenac Park. She was unable to photograph them, even though she says she took several good shots of the impressions with her expensive new camera.
When she got the film developed the footprints did not come out. Those pictures were completely black. Pritchett attributes this to the demonic power she thinks Bigfoot possesses. Pritchett often preaches about the ancient evil that threatens her congregants. So no one was surprised or alarmed by her lack of photographic proof.

2009, Hemphill, Texas: Homeowner Terrorized by Bigfoot

Ernie Franklin owned a house near Sabine National Forest in Hemphill, Texas. His small ranch home was nearly isolated down a single lane road. Franklin started composting in a bin outside his kitchen window. As he prepared his meals he would just scrape the unwanted food into the bin.
After a few weeks, Franklin grew tired of cleaning up his yard after various animals got into the compost bin. So he got rid of it
About a week after he stopped the food composting, he was abruptly woken in the middle of the night by a thumping on his roof. He grabbed his shot gun and rushed outside to see what was on his roof. He just caught a glimpse of a dark figure leap off the sloping one story roof.
Shining his flashlight around for about 10 minutes, Franklin was convinced the animal was gone. He went back inside. But he was unable to go back to sleep because the rest of the night rocks hit his roof and there was a bloodcurdling howl from right outside his house.
In the morning, Franklin found Bigfoot prints in the dirt around his house. He figures that the Bigfoot came to rely upon his compost bin and when it found it gone, it grew frustrated and angry. After that one night, the Bigfoot never returned.

1893, Melissa Lott claims wife in very deed.  

Melissa Lott (Smith Willes) testified that she had been Joseph's wife "in very deed." (Affidavit of Melissa Willes, 3 Aug. 1893, Temple Lot case, 98, 105; Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 156.)

1893, Emily D. Partridge rooms .. 

Emily D. Partridge (Smith Young) said she "roomed" with Joseph the night following her marriage to him and said that she had "carnal intercourse" with him. (Temple Lot case (complete transcript), 364, 367, 384; see Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 15.)

Joseph Nobel wrote.. 

 In a court affidavit, faithful Mormon Joseph Noble wrote that Joseph told him he had spent the night with Louisa Beaman. (Temple Lot Case, 427)

Keunu Reeves Paternity.

Karen Sala had alleged that Reeves was the father of her four adult children and was seeking $3 million a month in spousal support and $150,000 a month in retroactive child support.

What do these all have in common?   They are CLAIMS being made without corroborating evidence as to their truthfulness.  Now the lack of corroborating evidence is OK when your are BELIEVING in some supernatural being.. or Big Foot.. but when it comes to making claims against someone.  We hold a jurisprudence that holds that someone is innocent until proven Guilty.    This Jurisprudence is founded upon Biblical precedent..

Biblical Standard of truth

When charging someone with a wrong doing the Bible gives us a standard..

A single witness shall not suffice to convict a person of any crime or wrongdoing in connection with any offense that may be committed. Only on the evidence of two or three witnesses shall a charge be sustained. - Deut 19:15

Matt records that Jesus affirms this rule..

 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. - Matt: 18:15-16

And Paul affirms this as well in his letter to the Corinthians.

Every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 2 Cor 13:1

CARM and the anti-Mormons.

In recent days the CARM anti-Mormon minions have been on a parade with the claims of Joseph Smith having sex with his wives in an effort to claim Joseph Smith committed some wrong doing.. Either by claiming adultery or a bigamist, even worse, a pedophile, sexual molester..    And yet not one shred of evidence has been put forth that meets the Jurisprudence and Biblical standard for truth.   In fact we have more evidence fot the existence of Big Foot than we do for the claim of Joseph Smith having sexual relations with anyone but Emma Smith...

And its a sexual relationship that is required for any of the claims of adultery, bigamy or sexual molestation to have any credence.   If Joseph never had sex with anyone but Emma, then adultery is out of the question.. So is Bigamy, for even if his a religious sealing is viewed as a 'marriage' within the ideals of the LDS Faith..  There is no marriage certificate, or consummation etc, then it's not a marriage by civil standards and thus no Bigamy..  And of course the fallacious pedophilia charge that some Anti-Mormons who seem to have crawled out of the sewer make.. is impossible if there is not sex involved.

This preoccupation with sex seems to be a theme with Anti-Mormons... see the Rorschach test  post.
Nevertheless, many of the arguments and charges of wrong doing by Joseph Smith boils down to whether or not he had sex with anyone but Emma.   And the facts remain, there is no uncorroborated evidence of any sexual relation with anyone but Emma.  None. period.

Yes, there is claims as stated above, a half dozen or so..  Women making claims that their child was the product of a union between they and Joseph Smith,   Its a common claim for a woman make false claims as to he paternity only for DNA evidence to prove the claim false.   Even today as we see the same as mentioned in the leader..Ms Sala claiming Keunu Reeves fathered her children..She claimed in her affidavit," Reeves uses hypnosis and disguises himself as different people, including her ex-husband,"  

As to date not a single claim made about Joseph Smith father a child that can be tested via DNA has been proven true.   A few non-testable claims remain.   Including claims made in affidavits during a court trial about legal rights to the Temple Lot, in Missouri.   None of these testimonies have been corroborated and remain merely a claim, not proof of anything.

Therefore it remains, the jurisprudence and biblical standard applied to the evidence against Joseph Smith .. he is innocent of the alleged wrong doing..  And I believe a true Bible believing Christian who truly believes what Christ admonished, would agree..   He may be guilty of some wrong doings, but having sex with anyone but Emma is not one of them.

So to all those who believe the uncorroborated claims about Joseph Smith sexual activities.. Do you also believe in Big Foot?

Notable Characters

Catherine Aurelia - Probably one of the most vile and contentions anti-Mormons on CARM and other sites where she uses the name Krusader..  Catherine (Carol)  devotes her life it seems to daily propagating some of the most voracious and baseless claims against the LDS Faith.        

She is a social worker and her favorite themes generally involve sex and money, as almost every post she makes she makes accusations that Joseph Smith was a Pedophile, sexual predator..and the LDS Church steals money etc..

BrianH - Right up there next to Catherine Aurelia.  Allegedly worked as a forensic investigator, but seemingly retired now.   His posts are long winded, and don't really say much other than laced with childish invective directed at LDS.  His MO is typical of a lot of ardent Anti-Mormons.. Makes fallacious self fulling arguments, and when his argument fails, he simply moves the goal posts..  Famous for denying his questions are answered when they have been.. He considered any answer that doesn't play script and agenda a non-answer..   As stated his long winded and often doesn't take time to think about what he is actually
saying.. He has made claims he doesn't believe in God (Which may possibility be true) , or that electrons have no mass are are not matter. etc.

Like many Anti-Mormons, he has never read the Book of Mormon and has little actual knowledge of the faith.

Bonnie.  65 year old in Lutheran from Georgia, Never read the book of Mormon and refuses to do so.. Spends most of her time canvasing anti-Mormon propaganda,  Her favorite source is Lynn Wilder.

She continually denies misrepresenting LDS beliefs, all while doing so..  One of the more notable quotes by her.. "I don't care about the indented meaning, I'm talking about the UN-intended meaning."

JamesOne5

CARM Double Standards.

CARM Rules and their duplicitous and hypocritical double standards.

CARM Posts the following RULE regarding links to non-Carm sites on their discussion forum

RULE 29:
Links:
(a) No links permitted in the chatroom but to CARM articles or forum discussions. Must ask mod permission to post links in chatroom. 

(b) Forums, do not post links to offensive material--porno or websites, no blogs (with discussion content no FB pages or articles with comments/discussion), no discussion forums, no websites that are discussing the CARM board participants by user name in a negative manner, etc. Do not post links to graphic pictures. You may post a link only if it is pertaining to the topic as reference to quotes in the topic discussed but not for advertisement or promotional purposes. Can only make two links to other websites per discussion thread, again, no blogs/articles/links (with discussion content), no discussion forums, (no anti-Christian links), no attacks on board posters, no promoting of sin or attacks on Christianity and Bible); may link only to official religion websites--that includes signature/profile links. Super members may link to their "G" rated businesses but not to unofficial religious websites or anti-Christian websites. Links to LDS, RCC, JW are permitted if they are links to their official teaching websites only. Users may post unlimited number of links to CARM papers or CARM forum posts for reference.

Now you would expect that if CARM was a true Christian website, it would Take care be even handed in its application of it's rules, and enforce them evenly without bias.

In a recent dialog with a Anti-Mormon poster who proceeded to make links to Other Anti-Mormon websites..  I challenged them on the Rule 29(b) where it asserts links may be only to Official Religion sites, and the following post of guidance came down from CARM admin Diane S

Christian websites permitted or Christians may post links that are not anti-christian. It is RC or LDS, JW that must only post links to official websites....Diane S (Carm Admin)

Now to say this is duplicitous and double standard is an understatement.  For what CARM Admin is telling us here is that if you are an Anti-Mormon poster you may make post links to any sort of web sites even belligerent Anti-Mormon propaganda sites so long as they are not Anti-Christian, with Christian being that which conforms to the CARM Admin point of view.. (Which is very narrow Calvinist view) .

  

Meanwhile other posters such as Roman Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses or Latter Day Saints are forbidden from being allowed the same privilege.

So take note.. CARM Forums are a heavily BIASED Anti-Mormon, Anti-Catholic and Anti-Anything that doesn't fit the narrow minded imagination of Matt Slick's over the top Calvinist ideology.

No other gods?

A common charge made by Anti-Mormon critics on CARM and elsewhere is the claim that Mormonism is polytheistic and the Bible teaches there is only ONE God..   This is simply false on both accounts.

First of all Mormonism is not Polytheistic. Critics toss that term out with disingenuous and pejorative intent to elicit an emotional aversion to "stop think".    The opposite of Polytheism is Monotheism.  Now there is a matter of definition of what is Monotheism. Monotheism has differing definitions.  In it's narrow and strictest sense, Monotheism is the belief and worship in one God period, no others exist.  And this is the definition which our critics use when attacking LDS beliefs.. And if you apply that definition, LDS are not monotheists.. and neither are Christians, and the Bible is polytheistic.   Perhaps the only true Monotheists are Muslims.   Now we know our critics do not view themselves as polytheists.. so there must be a broader definition to Monotheism and there is.

Monotheism in a broader sense is divided into subcategories.. One of these subcategories is Henotheism.

Henotheism (Greek εἷς θεός heis theos "one god") is the belief in and worship of a single God while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities that may also be worshipped.

This would be a more accurate description of LDS beliefs.. it also happens to be an accurate description of the beliefs taught in the Bible text.   Although not all Bible translations have been updated to modern standards to include textual readings found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, some have, such as the NRSV, or the ESV.   Here a but a few of the highlights found in the Biblical text that are clear indication of Henotheism.

When the Most High apportioned the nations,when he divided humankind,he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods;-     Deut 32:8

“Rejoice with him, O heavens; bow down to him, all gods, for he avenges the blood of his children and takes vengeance on his adversaries. -  Deut 32:43

God has taken his place in the divine council;in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:...I say, “You are gods, children of the Most High, all of you;    Psalm 82

There is none like you among the gods, O Lord,nor are there any works like yours. All the nations you have made shall come and bow down before you, O Lord,    - Psalm 86

Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness;   - Gen 1:26

 
I think we have a good sampling here to make the point.. The ancient Israelites who gave us the OT texts were henotheistic.  They believed as it is articulated in Deut 32:8.. that the Most High God.. divided up humanity by a number of 'gods'.. each nation had their sovereign god.

  Israels god, was YHWH.. the 'I am" that spoke from the burning bush to Moses and led the Hebrews out of captivity and to the promised land and they were to worship him only.. no other gods as the first of the ten commandments state.

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me -- Exodus 20:2-3

. This is not an assertion that no other gods exist, but to the contrary, they just must not worship them, for they are only to worship YHWH (Jehovah).

This is very critical context to keep in mind when reading Biblical texts like those which critics use to shore up the Trinity dogma.. Namely the Duetro-Isaiah book of comfort...

Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. - Isaiah 44:6

I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides me there is no god. I arm you, though you do not know me,so that they may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is no one besides me; I am the Lord, and there is no other. - Isaiah 45:5-6

These are some of the proof text's Trinitarians use to refute the LDS doctrine of the Godhead, which differs from the Trinity in that it avoids the paradox of three in one, and rather asserts it three unified as one in purpose.

So we see if you take these Duetro-Isaiah passages out of their historical context, they have a strong monotheistic bent, which at the same time contradict the passages cited earlier in this post which clearly acknowledges the presence of other gods.. So what gives here?   It's the historical context that Trinitarians obfuscate.   That context is to whom and when these duetro-Isaiah texts were written.  So here's the back story to help understand.

At the time the these duetro-Isaiah texts were produced, the audience was a captive Israel or Judah to be more precise.  These Jews held as we have pointed out earlier a henotheistic world view.. That every nation had it's own sovereign god as the world was divided by the Most High.   Now Israels God was YHWH, who defeated Pharoh and protected led the Isaelites into Caanan and protected them,  but now the status quo of the day seems to be they are captives in a land of Babylonians.. Jerusalem and the their YHWH's temple has been laid waist.. It would seem to the average Jew, YHWH had been defeated by Marduk, the god of the Babylonians, and they were now living in the land of Babylonia.. thus the inclination that YHWH was no more and that it's time to worship Marduk would seem to be the order of the day.. So here comes the words of comfort from Isaiah.. Asserting that YHWH is not gone, for Israel there is no other besides YHWH.. despite how it looks.   There is none like YHWH and YHWH will prevail.

So we see that these so-called proof texts of a ONE god of the universe are nothing of the sort when placed in their historical setting.. The text wasn't written to the Babylonians, or to the world.. But to the Jews captive specifically, and that is the context in which they need to be understood.

Joseph Smith a Pedophile?

This has got to be one of the more outlandish and desperate claims made by Anti-Mormons on CARM and elsewhere.

As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children (generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnostic criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13).

References: Wikipedia

"Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition". American Psychiatric Publishing. 2013. Retrieved July 25, 2013.

"The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioral Disorders Diagnostic criteria for research World . World Health Organization/ICD-10. 1993.

 "Pedophilia". Encyclopedia Britannica.

Seto MC.(2009) Pedophili. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 5:391–407.

Making a charge that someone is a pedophile is a serious claim, and one that demands serious evidence and proof for such a claim is slanderous and libelous to say the least unless it's PROVEN true.  Since not only individuals, but corporations and religious groups can be subjects of libel, there maybe legal consequences to those who make the claim. That claim requires proof rising to the level of BEYOND a reasonable doubt. So what has been our critics evidence?  None whatsoever.

Keep in mind that this charge they make is about pedophilia, not polygamy or adultery.  Those are topics of discussion in their own right but and whether or not you believe in the LDS faith or whether or not you believe Joseph Smith was married to multiple women an/or was intimate with them is irrelevant to the question of pedophilia.

Let us examine some of the claims of proof.

It has been asserted by the Anti-Mormon crew that Joseph Smith married women who were much his junior in age.. The youngest was Hellen Mar Kimball.  Age 14.   Now when we say married, there is no official marriage licence for anyone but Joseph and Emma.   These other marriages were by LDS tradition religious spiritual sealing that does not involve any consummation.  And thus far the critics have been unable to present ANY proof there was intimacy with anyone but Emma.   DNA tests have been done in many cases of claims, but all have turned up negative.

Yet even if consummation was involved note the age of said young women is not within the age deemed to be a 'Pre-pubescent'.. furthermore the fact that Joseph and Emma bore several children, coupled with the fact that ALL of his alleged consummated plural marriages were NOT to women of pre-pubescent age.  Therefore the charge of pedophilia fall flat on it's face is nothing but a desperate attempt of Anti-Mormons resorting to deliberate libel in order to defame the LDS faith.

And update to this post.. Today, my calling attention to this libelous claim by CARM poster has resulted in my suspension from CARM.. As one can see CARM forums and it's proprietor are bigoted hypocrites with an modus operandi of shooting the messenger if CARM doesn't like the message.

Anti-Mormon rules for Christian Apologetics

When one spends much time on CARM, it becomes very much apparent that the purveyors and supporters proclaim to be Christian, but behave in ways that are anything but Christian.   They have strict rules at CARM regarding making forum Posts which they believe attack Christianity.. such as:

"This is a Christian website and you may not post words in mockery of Christian beliefs, or terms offensive in descriptions of our Lord God. You may certainly challenge Christian teaching, but do so respectfully."

 And yet they do not restrict themselves or their proponents form making outlandish attacks on all other beliefs even those which are Christian beliefs, but just not Christian according to CARMs own self appointed definition of Christianity, and thus they label them as 'cults' and 'heresies' 

The rules also state :

"This is a Christian website, if you want to promote liberal propaganda, take it elsewhere. Christians on the forums permitted their free ideas and opinions on social issues and will not have to tolerate insults, divisive comments from the more liberal posters."

Did you catch that?  Christian (only those whom CARM deems Christian) are permitted for express their ideas 'freely'.. even those ideas mean demeaning the beliefs of others. Recently  my calling attention to a libelous claim by CARM poster has resulted in my suspension from CARM.. As one can see CARM forums and it's proprietor are bigoted hypocrites with an modus operandi of shooting the messenger if CARM doesn't like the message.

Orthodoxy

CARM can't handle the truth.. This is a copy of a recent post I made on the CARM forums which was deleted by the moderation for some undisclosed reason.. but I see it just really amounts to censorship on the part of CARM against the truth..

Here's the original Post.

"Also, I would like to address the concept of Orthodoxy.. "Right belief" . There was NO orthodoxy enforced with Jesus and his disciples. Orthodoxy didn't exist prior to it's emergence in the late Late 4th to 5th Centuries under Roman Emperor. Virtually all major denominations of Christianity trace back historically to that period. Mormonism, does NOT follow traditional Orthodoxy, surprise surprise.. And in fact most of those comments you cited back a while ago were charges against the Orthodoxy. 

So is Orthodoxy really the "Right belief".. If you think about it carefully, it has nothing to do with being "Right".. it has to do with being "Politically Correct". Orthodoxy was set up as a control over how people would behave in the emerging Roman Theocratic Empire. It's a form of MIND Control that was implemented. The Orthodoxy set up what writings would be considered scripture, what teachings were permissible to a largely illiterate populace. The edict of Thessalonica made it treason against the Emperor and Empire to disagree with the emerging dogma. 

Think about that carefully will you.. How many here cry "Cult" to any group that attempt to brainwash people into a belief system?.. Yet this is EXACTLY what the Orthodoxy was doing on a Empire level and would continue for over a thousand years. Free thinking, i.e not believing in the dogma authorized by the Church and it's overseers was often publishable by Torture and death.. For all the cries about how Christians were persecuted by the Romans in the early first centuries.. Such was pale in comparison to the persecution inflicted on Christians by other Christian through Orthodoxy. Calvinism embraced this extreme view, and was dished out at the Synod of Dort against the Arminianists and the underpinning of the Witch hunts of Europe in which some estimates put as much as 100,000 people were murdered in the name of Christ. And this say's nothing about the horror met out on non-Christians through the inquisitions and crusades in the name of Christ. 

So I ask you to ponder.. Is "Orthodoxy" Christ's way.. or was it the Roman Emperors way? Then ask yourself, how much of what you believe about Christ and Christianity was fed to you by the Orthodoxy that still remains.

Anti-Mormons who are they?

In another post I described the meaning of Anti-Mormon.. simply put someone engaged in Anti-Mormonism, which is the participation in act that are against Mormonism.  But who are these people and where do they come from?

First of all we need to understand there are different types of Anti-Mormons.   I break these down into three groups..

1. Political
2. Ideological
3. Emotional

Politics

The first group represented the historical Anti-Mormon.  When Mormonism was getting established in the early 19th Century, in the western frontiers of America, which at that time was what we call the Midwest..   Mormons were a very communal society,  And they would establish enclaves and settlements that were predominantly Mormon.   Also, early Mormons tended to vote in concert with one another..sometimes called voting in Block.

 As with most religious conflicts in the world the conflict is not about religion at all, but about politics and control of the land.   Such would became the case with the Mormons in the Midwest. As they founded communities like Nauvoo, Illinois and places in Missouri there became political contentions.  Local non-Mormons began to fear the political strength the Mormons were influencing in the area and sought to chase them out of the territory.   Since the LDS settlers voted in block and were becoming numerous, these opponents employed less honorable means of trying to rid the area of Mormon influence.. And such was the birth of Anti-Mormon propaganda, militias and even reaching the heights of a Governor ordered extermination, which ultimately led to the murder of Joseph Smith and the LDS moving west and settling in the Salt Lake Valley.

Ideological foes

The second group of Anti-Mormons comes from an ideological bent, mainly Calvinism.  In the mid 16th century there rose a Protestant Reformer named John Calvin, who's views represented a very extreme expression of Augustinian doctrine.  As Calvin rose to influence Geneva would become a Calvinist theocracy, to the point that all need to conform to Calvinism or suffer the consequences.  The execution of Michael Servetus 1553 set the stage of what was to follow.

In the late 16th to early 17th Century there arose a Dutch reformer named Jacobus Arminius
 who's beliefs challenged those of Calvinism, primarily on the role of free agency and works.  Calvinist TULIP doctrines are such the ideology asserts the Man has no free will and God predestines who he will save, thus there is nothing anyone can do to change that fate.   Arminius disagreed.  This clash of ideas came to a head in the Synod of Dort  1618-1619 where after much contenteous debate the Calvinists won the politics of the day and sought purge the heresy of Arminianism from the land. Following the synod Arminists we're imprisoned, beheaded and for the most chased from the land.  Yet, Arminianism didn't die that day, it fled to safer grounds England and ultimately America.  Today Arminianism is found in denomination such as the Methodist faith, and today represents that view held by most Evangelicals in America.

Now Mormonism is rooted in Arminiansim.. Joseph Smith stated he was leaning to join the Methodist congregation, and Brigham Young was a former Methodist Minister.  So no surpise that much of the doctrines found in Mormonism closely resemble those of Arminianism, especially on the topic of Salvation and the role of free will and works.  Calvinism then represent the ideological antithesis of Mormonism and has a long rooted history dating back to the Synod of Dort, of being an ideological foe. Thus we can see that MOST Anti-Mormon web sites and Ministries such as CARM are actually hosted by Mormonisms ideological nemesis the Calvinists.

The emotives

The third group of Anti-Mormons are the emotive ones.. Usually it's this group that are the most vocal. They are often a LDS who for one reason or the other has left the LDS Faith, but can't leave it alone.  Quite often this group knows very little of their former faith and what it actually teaches.  Instead their experience of the LDS faith is usually shaped by some unrealized expectation.  Usually involving someone who was close to them and who's failure to meet expectations has left a negative impression on the now ex-Mormon antagonist.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

 As we see there are many forms of Anti-Mormons, but interestingly the catch phrase of 'my enemies enemy is my friend' has never been more true than in the circles of Anti-Mormonism.   Thus we see a convergence in Ministries like CARM where ex-Mormons who have a emotive bent against the LDS faith team up with Calvinists and their ideological bent.. Even though many of these ex-Mormons if ever questioned on whether or not they would agree with the TULIP Doctrines of Calvinism, would not.   Often they don't even understand the bedfellows they have embraced.

Who is Matt Slick

Matt Slick is the proprietor of CARM.  Christian Apologetics Research Ministry.   Matt is also a TULIP Calvinist and hosts another Website called "Calvinist's corner"

Matt Slick is one of the more prominent Anti-Mormons on the web these days.. He hosts a radio program, and although his site and radio program are not exclusively against Mormonism.. Anti-Mormonism seems to be prevalent in the majority of it.  His testimony which he publishes also bears this out as for one of the very reasons for starting CARM was based upon his encounter with other Anti-Mormons, namely Jerry and Marian Bodine.

He states

Then, one night at one of the many Bible studies I was attending, someone read something to me that would have a profound impact on my life. 

"God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil--all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet..." (Joseph Smith from the Mormon book, History of the Church Vol. 6, pp. 408-409) 

This quote angered me terribly. I couldn't believe that anyone would be so arrogant as to boast he had done more to keep a church together than even Jesus had. To me, this was unfathomable and blasphemous. When I found out that the founder of Mormonism had uttered that boast, I had to find out who this person was and what he stood for. After all, I erringly thought, Mormons were Christians and that quote from its founder just didn't make sense. That is when I began attending a Bible study taught by Jerry and Marian Bodine who were then working with Walter Martin, the original Bible Answerman on the Radio. The Bodines and I became friends and I studied with them for years and my interest in cults, apologetics, and doctrine exploded. 

Later, a friend of mine and I began a swap-meet ministry. Every Saturday, for 2 1/2 years, we would set up a booth and pass out gospel literature as well as information that exposed the cults, evolution, the New Age, etc. Needless to say, we had lots of interesting discussions with people and I can honestly declare that it was there at the swap-meet that I learned the most about defending God's word. 

Next came a year-long phone ministry where my new roommate and I put an ad in a local publication. It said, "Learn the truth about Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, and Unity. Call (phone number). We received a great many calls and were able to help many people find the truth in Jesus. This was followed by a year of beach evangelism and door-to-door canvassing passing out Christian tracts. Soon afterwards I began to teach Bible studies and various classes on evangelism, Christian doctrine, and the cults at local churches. I have been studying and defending the truth ever since.  So far, it has been for more than 20 years now.

Now I too took a class taught by Marian Bodine.  She epitomizes the typical Anti-Mormon.  It was in and after her class that I met with her personally and had her tell me her story as to what caused her to begin her ministry.. I will attempt to relay that story.. It's been a few years, but the story was quite profound and has left an impression that last to this very day.. Understand also, this story is comming from the POV of Marian Bodine.

Marian told me she and her husband lived in Southern California,  Mission Viejo I recall, they were your typical non-denominational Christians and were not strong church goers.. They had a daughter who according to Marian, fell in love with a return LDS missionary.. Her daughter joined the LDS faith, married this return missionary and moved to Salt Lake City.    Then after couple of years, according to Marian, the marriage went on the rocks and allegedly her daughter divorced because her husband was a spouse abuser.. (Now this is from the point of view of the Mother in law, no independent collaboration of such accusation has ever been presented).

Her daughter remained in the LDS Church and despite Marian asking her daughter to come back to California after the divorce but she refused..  And then here's where the story get's interesting.   Marian then tells me he daughter married her ex-husbands father, who she said ultimately proved to be just like his son and the daughter divorced again.    It was during this second Marriage and divorce that Jerry and Marian moved to Salt Lake city and set up an Anti-Mormon ministry.

It was these people who it appears by Matt Slicks testimony directly influenced his form of Apologetic, which demonstratively has pronounced Anti-Mormon bent.

I'm not an Anti-Mormon..

Anti-Mormons do not like the designation of Anti-Mormon and quite often I have anti-Mormons tell me that "They aren't an Anti-Mormon, they are Anti-Mormonism".

Now I don't know if that is how they truly view themselves or that is an indication of their education. For claiming that oneself is "Anti-Mormonism" is like someone claiming they are "Mormonism".. Obviously it's poor grammar, for a person doesn't represent the whole of  Anti-Mormonism any more than a single individual represents the whole of Mormonism.   The individual that engages in Anti-Mormonism, is an Anti-Mormon.

As an example I recall one discussion I had with an Anti-Mormon named Paul Derengowski who consistently denied he was an "anti-Mormon" and yet posted the following statement on in our discussion on CARM.. 

"I am however staunchly opposed to EVERYTHING the Mormon faith advocates and stands for."

I don't know a better expression of an Anti-Mormon than that one, and yet they don't like the term applied to them. More about Paul can be found on this news clip

Bigotry has much the same phenomenon that drug addicts and alcoholics suffer from.. they too don't like to be called an addict or an alcoholic, yet the term often accurately describes the behavior of the individual.

Anti-Mormonism is more than merely not believing in the LDS faith.  Like Mormonism itself which engages in an active set of beliefs, Anti-Mormonism is actively engaged in activities against the LDS Faith.  Such activities often include creation of Web sites such as CARM that actively publish materials that are explicitly challenging the LDS fatih.   Or canvasing LDS sites and facilities with the express purpose of engaging in arguments with LDS and perspective LDS patrons.

Perhaps the first thing Anti-Mormons could do is to acknowledge that they are in fact behaving in such a manner.  Own up to the what they are all about I say.. 

Sexual Predator?

Sexual Predator?  Maybe not, but a predator for sure, and much more than just a Spiritual one.   Have you ever listened to his radio show?   I happened to listen to it a few times.. And in one instance it was a gentleman caller who is non-LDS married to an LDS lady and they have a son.   The Caller was inquiring about the best ways to discuss his faith with his wife and child.. Since his wife was the more active religiously in the family and his son was going to Primary etc.

The phone dialog proceeds with Matt Slick being very sympathetic to the callers concerns etc.. Telling him how important families are etc.. and as soon as he had gotten the confidence of the caller, so it seemed from the dialog, Matt did a SLICKerooo on the man.. He proceeds to advise the caller to start reading only from the Bible with his Son.. And to stay away from the Book of Mormon..  Then while his wife was gone, he should have a pastor from his church come and go through the house blessing it to remove Satan’s influence.  (This had to be done while the callers wife was away). Also, behind his wife's back he should have his son taught by his pastor or someone about the real Jesus..   Then lastly he told the caller that he should be on his guard that the LDS church would tell his wife to leave him if he didn't become LDS, and therefore he should prepare himself for divorce.   And that the LDS church does this all the time.

Now all religious differences aside for a moment.  Anyone who has been married and has gone through a divorce knows just how fragile trust in a marriage can be and how horrible divorces are especially when there are children involved.   So lets examine the insidiousness of Matt Slicks advice..  He plants seeds of distrust all over the place with this caller.  Ideas like “His wife is going to leave him because he is not LDS”.   “He needs to sneak behind his wife’s back to purge his home from the influence of Satan”.  Now if this man has any emotional connection with his wife she is certainly going to be sensitive to him sneaking behind her back about something… This will most likely raise fears concerning trust in her perception of the marriage.. She may then take precautions… (The seed of distrust now being planted in her mind)  The caller already has the seed of distrust planted in his mind that the church is going to tell his wife to divorce him because he isn't LDS..   And then as soon as she senses he is doing something behind her back and takes some precautions or calls him on what’s going on,  He is likely to perceive that her actions are being driven by the Church telling her she needs to divorce him and so he shores up his own emotional and legal defenses and so you can see how the relationship can quickly disintegrate and spiral into a divorce..  All because of insidious little Satanic lies of Matt  Slick .

One must ask themselves, what kind of person would do such a thing to a family?  Matt Slick is not concerned with the well being of that Family or that young boy, who’s innocent and who’s life will be ripped apart by a divorce.  No not at all …Is Matt Slick a  Predator?   ABSOLUTELY!