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.