LDS Joseph Smith's Claim of an Apostasy is a Lie

[Rescued One]

Mark 16:16

Mark 16:16 doesn't say that.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I didn't know that Lutherans believed in predestination?

The doctrine of election is fundamental to Lutheran thought. However election in Lutheranism and election in Calvinism while similar are, in a lot of ways, very different animals. The doctrine of election in Lutheran thinking isn't about God's absolute sovereignty to pick and choose who is saved, it is a doctrine of comfort for us; we can be confident in the gracious promises of God in His Gospel because it is not up to us to be found worthy, but God has chosen us and elected us in Christ by His mercy.

It is interesting that Luther would go from one end of the religious spectrum (tremendous guilt and agony for not living the commandments perfectly) to the other end of the religous spectrum (God chooses who will be saved). I was unaware of that tremendous shift on his part. Am I off my rocker?

For Luther the Doctrine of Justification meant everything. Since it is not we who by our efforts achieve justice before God, it is only by the gracious condescension of God through Christ and Christ in His Instituted Means (Word and Sacrament) that can be efficacious in justifying sinners. We are justified by grace alone. Full stop. Through faith, "not of yourselves, this is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8), thus such faith comes from outside ourselves (extra nos) created in us, granted to us as a gift by the efficacious Word (Romans 10:17) by the power of the Holy Spirit:

"For neither you nor I could ever know anything of Christ, or believe on Him, and obtain Him for our Lord, unless it were offered to us and granted to our hearts by the Holy Ghost through the preaching of the Gospel. The work is done and accomplished; for Christ has acquired and gained the treasure for us by His suffering, death, resurrection, etc. But if the work remained concealed so that no one knew of it, then it would be in vain and lost. That this treasure, therefore, might not lie buried, but be appropriated and enjoyed, God has caused the Word to go forth and be proclaimed, in which He gives the Holy Ghost to bring this treasure home and appropriate it to us. Therefore sanctifying is nothing else than bringing us to Christ to receive this good, to which we could not attain of ourselves." - The Large Catechism, Article III of the Apostles' Creed, 38-39

This Word, being found also in Baptism and the Holy Supper,

"From this now learn a proper understanding of the subject, and how to answer the question what Baptism is, namely thus, that it is not mere ordinary water, but water comprehended in God's Word and command, and sanctified thereby, so that it is nothing else than a divine water; not that the water in itself is nobler than other water, but that God's Word and command are added." - ibid. On Holy Baptism, 15

"Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar?

Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink. And as we have said of Baptism that it is not simple water, so here also we say the Sacrament is bread and wine, but not mere bread and wine, such as are ordinarily served at the table, but bread and wine comprehended in, and connected with, the Word of God." - ibid. On the Sacrament of the Altar, 8-9

It is the efficacy of God's Word here, the very Word of God, the command of God which makes a thing what it is and which accomplishes what He sets it to accomplish (c.f. Isaiah 55:11).

The doctrine of election is rooted in Justification; that we are Christ's not because we chose Him, but because He chose us, for He says, "You did not choose Me, rather I chose you" and we read "We love Him because He first loved us" and "He chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world ... He destined us for adoption His children through Jesus Christ according to the good pleasure of His will"

He did this because of His great love which He has for the world, which He has come to save and reconcile to Himself by His Son, for while we were God's enemies we were reconciled to Him by the death of His Son (Romans 5:10).

It is the radical, unstoppable love of God which He has for the whole world that He has intended, and intends, to save it. Not merely by knowing in advance whom would choose Him; but rather that He has destined us as His in Christ and makes it so by what He has done in sending His Son, who died for us, and who has been raised up from the dead, and makes these things ours as a gracious gift by His Word and Sacrament. Not of ourselves, not from what we do or have done or will do; but what He has done, for us, out of His good will and pleasure, because He so loved us, all of us, the whole world and will stubbornly love it and save it in spite of us. He will save us in spite of us. Because that is who God is.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Peter1000]

I'm not asking this question to argue with you whether faith alone or faith plus works is right or wrong. I'm asking---why did JS accept something within "abominable" and/or "apostate" Christianity as the basis for mormon salvation? He accused Christianity of both, but never proved either.

No, mormonism does not fit orthodox Christianity's version of salvation, not even by those Christians who accept faith plus works. Mormonism's Jesus is an afterthought, the final salute to "after all you can do". There is no such thing within the faith plus works Christian doctrine version! Even within the faith plus works doctrine, Jesus is critically essential from the start. (Who gets the HS before first accepting Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord? Mormons.) Even within the faith plus works doctrine, no one can "work" without first being saved by Jesus, then the HS is given. Mormonism saves long afterwards (despite church membership? Another questionable practice.) Mormons are famous for openly rejecting the "born-again" status of accepting Jesus as their Savior and Lord after the point of repentance. They are saved "gradually", it being necessary to fulfill a long laundry list of tasks first. Yet their church membership automatically puts them within a second heaven. Good grief.

Really, Peter? Where and when did you hear that we cannot reconcile all salvation scriptures in the NT, let alone the OT where its mentioned all over the place, btw? I think your defenses are nothing more than intent to divert the subject away from JS's foundational lie. Because Paul and Jesus agree perfectly on salvation. Won't work with me.

Jesus never used the word Mormon or a "restored belief in His church" either. Does that make Him any less true? (You think He would have when speaking about the latter days, being so "essential", but nowhere is either concept found throughout the entire bible. In fact, it pointedly and specifically warns of alternative false gospels coming along, offered by.... an angel of false light. That it does mention, along with false prophets and christs.) But that is besides the point here. (Remember, you were the one who ventured into that territory, not me. Don't go blaming me for it.)

Now you are putting words in my mouth when falsely accusing me of believing anything Jesus said is "repugnant". Is that an emotional defense response talking? Regardless, not very kind or honest of you. Its also overreaching, a clear indication of a weak position where I come from.

You still haven't answered why JOSEPH SMITH accepted something within an "apostate" belief that he, MEANWHILE, is also claiming is "abominable" before God. He cannot have it both ways, and neither can you. Being "close enough" isn't an answer. And my answer was not "silence". I told you and you agreed, answer the question I asked first and then I will answer yours. You haven't answered with any satisfaction yet. I've already informed you that what you gave was basically a "non-answer". It doesn't address the heart of the matter by any means. I'm sorry, but you simply cannot skip out on it with such a glib response.

You say: No, Mormonism does not fit orthodox Christianity's version of salvation, not even by those Christians who accept faith plus works.

Out of your own mouth, you have answered your own question. Mormonism does not fit orthodox Christianity's version of salvation, not even by those Christians who accept faith plus works. JS did not follow the normal Christian view of salvation. There are too many and very confusing. That is your answer, and I do not expect you to come back to me and accuse me of a non-answer, or not a satifactory answer. I'm sure it is not a satisfactory answer since you have gone to such a long way out there to point out that JS chose a salvation mode that already existed in normal Christianity. He did not. Jesus showed him the true way. That is your answer, regardless of what you think. If we compare normal Christian faith and works salvation way, it will be quite different than JS and Jesus's salvation way in the NT. So JS did not choose any normal Christian way. Sorry, I know you thought you were making a good point.

Jesus restored by JS the true way to salvation. Remember this is "the time of the restitution (which means to restore) of all things spoken of by all the prophets of God since the beginning of the world." (Acts 3:20-21)
Did you get that. God has spoken about this time through His holy prophets since the world began. We know that the time of the restitution of all things is not the time of Christ, because the prophet at that time is talking about a time in the future. It says that Jesus must stay in the heavens (after his ascension) until this time. That is exactly what happened. Jesus was in heaven and then in the time of the restitution of all things came to the prophet JS and appeared to him and the restitution (restoring) of his church began. So the idea that it has not been discussed in the bible is not true. Tell me any other time since the time of Christ that there was a restitution of all things? No one has talked about such a thing since Jesus's time, except JS. He talked about it and accomplished it, and died for it. Nobody else. Go do your research.

I really don't care if you answer the question I asked. I already have my answer. When it come to Jesus or Paul, I guarentee you will take Paul's salvation way over Jesus's salvation way. Prove me wrong. Jesus was works based, Paul was grace based. Show me how you reconcile the 2 ways. Mormonism does it perfectly. How do you?

 

[Ironhold]

A Christian isn't just any person who claims they are.

Then why do so many mainline Christian works - particularly those pushed by Evangelical Protestants - make the claim that "Just say you believe and you're saved!"?

BTW, I've never heard a Christian say, "I'm a good Christian."

SOP for the Christian counter-cult is for the speaker to play up their qualifications, attributes, and status as a Christian in good standing in order to make it seem like they have a firmer foundation to speak from than they actually do.

The more effort a person puts into playing this up, the greater the odds that they'll turn out to be a horrible example of what Christianity actually stands for.

And if the person goes so far as to challenge people to examine their credentials, then get the popcorn because you're in for a show.

 

[Peter1000]

Mark 16:16 doesn't say that.

What does it say then?

If you say it only talks about what it takes to be damned, then you are compromising the scriptures to fit your agenda. You are in compete denial. You know exactly that this scripture sets a path to being saved, and since it does not fit your agenda, you deny the scripture, even though it is straight forward, and a child understands what Jesus is saying.

So go ahead and tell me what you think this verse is trying teach us? It will be interesting.

 

[mmksparbud]

You say: No, Mormonism does not fit orthodox Christianity's version of salvation, not even by those Christians who accept faith plus works.

Out of your own mouth, you have answered your own question. Mormonism does not fit orthodox Christianity's version of salvation, not even by those Christians who accept faith plus works. JS did not follow the normal Christian view of salvation. There are too many and very confusing. That is your answer, and I do not expect you to come back to me and accuse me of a non-answer, or not a satifactory answer. I'm sure it is not a satisfactory answer since you have gone to such a long way out there to point out that JS chose a salvation mode that already existed in normal Christianity. He did not. Jesus showed him the true way. That is your answer, regardless of what you think. If we compare normal Christian faith and works salvation way, it will be quite different than JS and Jesus's salvation way in the NT. So JS did not choose any normal Christian way. Sorry, I know you thought you were making a good point.

Jesus restored by JS the true way to salvation. Remember this is "the time of the restitution (which means to restore) of all things spoken of by all the prophets of God since the beginning of the world." (Acts 3:20-21)
Did you get that. God has spoken about this time through His holy prophets since the world began. We know that the time of the restitution of all things is not the time of Christ, because the prophet at that time is talking about a time in the future. It says that Jesus must stay in the heavens (after his ascension) until this time. That is exactly what happened. Jesus was in heaven and then in the time of the restitution of all things came to the prophet JS and appeared to him and the restitution (restoring) of his church began. So the idea that it has not been discussed in the bible is not true. Tell me any other time since the time of Christ that there was a restitution of all things? No one has talked about such a thing since Jesus's time, except JS. He talked about it and accomplished it, and died for it. Nobody else. Go do your research.

I really don't care if you answer the question I asked. I already have my answer. When it come to Jesus or Paul, I guarentee you will take Paul's salvation way over Jesus's salvation way. Prove me wrong. Jesus was works based, Paul was grace based. Show me how you reconcile the 2 ways. Mormonism does it perfectly. How do you?

Right!!! JS has his own version of salvation---and it was not given to him by God---the scriptures are clear and I'm glad you recognize this as his won errant way, and not Christian.

 

[tickingclocker]

"Peter1000, post: 69753735, member: 382212"]JS did not follow the normal Christian view of salvation. There are too many and very confusing. That is your answer
---No its not. It never was, in fact. That was YOUR answer. Not mine, Pete. There are two camps for salvation within Christianity. Faith plus works, and, faith alone. Pretty much it. I've always said that. You, on the other hand, are the one who keeps insisting there are "hundreds of ways of salvation within Christianity", yet never mention any of them (except tried to with Calvinism which fell flat).

JS chose a salvation mode that already existed in normal Christianity. He did not.
---Yes, he did. Then he modified something which was meant to be so simple a child can understand it, into a souped up hot rod, with "ordinances" and multiple heavens galore. Face it, JS built a key principle, upon the foundation of what he himself called an "apostate" church, one that God "told" him was "abominable". So that automatically taints mormonism with the same foundational "abominable and apostate" brush, too, by your own thinking.

Jesus showed him the true way. That is your answer, regardless of what you think.
---That is YOUR answer. Not mine. God didn't require any hot rod modifications to salvation. He never did and still doesn't. That was all JS's ideas. Never God's.

So JS did not choose any normal Christian way.
---EXACTLY. JS chose it. God did not. You know not what you just admitted.

"the time of the restitution (which means to restore) of all things spoken of by all the prophets of God since the beginning of the world." (Acts 3:20-21)
---Which means SALVATION through Jesus Christ. Not some "restored" fake, hot rod gospel developed by a delusional man. "Restored" means that animals never again have to "pay" for the sins of men with their lives (as if they ever could). Jesus Christ's blood pays for the sins of men now. (That's why the Jews have no temple today. Its no longer needed.) God, once and for all, restored relational order through the death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ, Savior and Lord. HE alone is the declared foundation of Christianity, of the entire bible, the proclamation of every single prophet. Not a certain set of pet doctrines one "must" believe, and/or a laundry list of works to perform, or being a member of a certain church, in order to be saved. Why can't you see that? Better yet, why can't you accept it? Why do you fight it so strongly, like Saul kicking against the pricks?

God has spoken about this time through His holy prophets since the world began.
---OF JESUS CHRIST and the WAY of SALVATION God has prepared since before time began. Nothing less, nothing all souped up with double barrel chrome carbs for effect either.

We know that the time of the restitution of all things is not the time of Christ, because the prophet at that time is talking about a time in the future. It says that Jesus must stay in the heavens...(after his ascension) until this time. That is exactly what happened. Jesus was in heaven and then in the time of the restitution of all things came to the prophet JS and appeared to him and the restitution (restoring) of his church began.
---And Jesus is nowhere around in the future? I beg your pardon? He is not interceding in people's lives even today? Just chillin' in heaven, huh? Not quite. Acts 3:21 says the heavens "must" receive Him, which they did--with great joy. Never says anything about Him not being able to move around at will. He's divine. Jesus can do anything in GOD's will He needs to. He's not bound by JS's ideas, Peter. Prove that one if you were taught it, or you dreamt it up on your own.

And come to think of it, doesn't mormonism claim that Jesus "left the heavens and visited the America's" after the "heavens 'must'.... essentially keep Jesus a prisoner", after His Ascension? Peter, JS's own BoM story DISPROVES his and/or your own belief/theory here! (Not that I believe Jesus did any visiting on any continent.) Try again.

Tell me any other time since the time of Christ that there was a restitution of all things?
---Jesus Christ restored the interpersonal, direct relationship between Man and God that Adam enjoyed, through His life, His death, His resurrection, and His Ascension.... where the heavens received Him. When Jesus returns in the future, that will be the bow on God's gift of salvation. Not salvation itself. That was addressed at Calvary, once and for all eternity. Pick up the box and open it, Peter. Don't be afraid.

Go do your research.
---Peter, take your own advice about your own system of belief. Seems like its sporting more self-made holes than you care to believe.

I'll be waiting.[/QUOTE]

 

[Rescued One]

Then why do so many mainline Christian works - particularly those pushed by Evangelical Protestants - make the claim that "Just say you believe and you're saved!"?

Maybe they haven't thought it through, maybe they aren't paying attention to other verses, maybe they tried to put a very short explaination on it, maybe they didn't read all of John Chapter Three, maybe they forgot that there are hypocrites and liars. After all there are false prophets and apostles and false Christs. Aren't there also false Christians?

SOP for the Christian counter-cult is for the speaker to play up their qualifications, attributes, and status as a Christian in good standing in order to make it seem like they have a firmer foundation to speak from than they actually do.

The more effort a person puts into playing this up, the greater the odds that they'll turn out to be a horrible example of what Christianity actually stands for.

All that criticism has no basis in fact.

 

[Rescued One]

What does it say then?

If you say it only talks about what it takes to be damned, then you are compromising the scriptures to fit your agenda. You are in compete denial. You know exactly that this scripture sets a path to being saved, and since it does not fit your agenda, you deny the scripture, even though it is straight forward, and a child understands what Jesus is saying.

So go ahead and tell me what you think this verse is trying teach us? It will be interesting.

I've done that more than once as have others. Look it up.

 

[Peter1000]

I've done that more than once as have others. Look it up.

Because it's such a simple reply, I'm suspecting yours is not a simple reply, then I also suspect you are in denial. This scripture is about what needs to be done to be saved, not what needs to be done to be damned. You want to focus on the damned part because you deny the saved part.

It is a straight forward scripture that simply and easily shows you the path to be saved. If you deny it because of your special path to be saved agenda, and refuse to take the true path, it will be up to you, it will be your responsibility.

So take the true path.

 

[Ironhold]

All that criticism has no basis in fact.

*starts laughing*

Oh wait, you were serious, weren't you?

*laughs harder*

Maybe it's time for you to examine your own mainline Christian fellows for a while. If you did, then maybe you'd see that the Christian counter-cult movement is an even worse hub of skive and villainy than Mos Eisley.

You see, the way the Christian counter-cult works is this: all a person needs is a grudge, an angle, and some convincing-sounding "sources". If they do a slick enough job of packaging it all, they can rope suckers in and part them from their money. It's an even bigger scam than the televangelist movement.

I should know, considering that I've dealt with quite a few of these cons and know-nothings over the years.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

*starts laughing*

Oh wait, you were serious, weren't you?

*laughs harder*

Maybe it's time for you to examine your own mainline Christian fellows for a while. If you did, then maybe you'd see that the Christian counter-cult movement is an even worse hub of skive and villainy than Mos Eisley.

You see, the way the Christian counter-cult works is this: all a person needs is a grudge, an angle, and some convincing-sounding "sources". If they do a slick enough job of packaging it all, they can rope suckers in and part them from their money. It's an even bigger scam than the televangelist movement.

I should know, considering that I've dealt with quite a few of these cons and know-nothings over the years.

If you're the one making the claim that the "Christian counter-cult" does what you say it does then the burden of proof is on you to prove it. Telling someone who doesn't agree with you that they have to "examine" it is a cop-out. It means that you can't back up your accusations so instead you deflect by telling that person that they are wrong and that they will see they are wrong if they "examine" it (implying that until now they haven't). Well, if the "SOP" of the "Christian counter-cult" is what you say it is then it should be easy for you to prove it. But you don't (can't).

And the laughing is another deflection tactic. It's a way of ridiculing the person who is disagreeing with you but without any basis in facts or logic. It's exactly Hillary Clinton's favorite tactic when she can't answer a question rationally because she knows it will expose her as a fraud. That's exactly how that tactic is used - to ridicule while deflecting.

Maybe it's time for you to stop deflecting and back up the accusations that you are making with facts, if that's possible.

 

[Ironhold]

If you're the one making the claim that the "Christian counter-cult" does what you say it does then the burden of proof is on you to prove it. Telling someone who doesn't agree with you that they have to "examine" it is a cop-out. It means that you can't back up your accusations so instead you deflect by telling that person that they are wrong and that they will see they are wrong if they "examine" it (implying that until now they haven't). Well, if the "SOP" of the "Christian counter-cult" is what you say it is then it should be easy for you to prove it. But you don't (can't).

And the laughing is another deflection tactic. It's a way of ridiculing the person who is disagreeing with you but without any basis in facts or logic. It's exactly Hillary Clinton's favorite tactic when she can't answer a question rationally because she knows it will expose her as a fraud. That's exactly how that tactic is used - to ridicule while deflecting.

Maybe it's time for you to stop deflecting and back up the accusations that you are making with facts, if that's possible.

I've been showing source after source the entire time I've been posting on this site.

And may of those sources, BTW, are non-Mormon entities.

For example, consider the Mosser-Owen Report from the 1997 Evangelical Theological Society Far West Annual Meeting. Mosser and Owen did a survey of pro- and anti-LDS literature that was available at the time, and found themselves gobsmacked by what they saw. To quote them:

We hope by this point we have convinced some of our readers that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is currently producing a robust apologetic for their beliefs. Their scholars are qualified, ambitious, and prolific. What are we doing in response? The silence has become deafening. And it is getting louder. The only two significant attempts (apart from the Tanners) are one article by James White and a recent book by Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon.

White's work is ripped apart for being full of straw arguments, while the Ankerberg & Weldon work "is among the ugliest, most unchristian, and misleading polemics in print." M&O ultimately concluded that unless mainline Christianity got off its lazy backside and started using actual research in the place of hate speech and strawmen, we were eventually going to win.


Or we have the University of Missouri - Kansas City's profiles on such ignoble individuals as Ed Decker and Walter Martin, both of whom are pretty clearly exposed as liars and con artists... and both of whom are still regarded as prominent members of the Christian counter-cult movement and still hailed as being in good standing and proud examples of what a "good Christian" should be.

Martha Beck? Writer's Digest compared her to James Frey and Frank McCourt.

Bill Schnobelen? Masonic Info tried - and failed - to reconcile his personal history, the failure stemming from the fact that he himself never gives the same timeline of events twice.

Alberto Rivera? Another liar. He says he fled his native Spain because the Vatican was trying to kill him, but in reality he was fleeing outstanding arrest warrants for fraud and other crimes.

Jack Chick? I'll let his own words condemn him. The tract I linked you to, "Lisa", got so much heat even from his own followers that Chick Publications was forced to throw this one down the memory hole.

Then we have the countless rank-and-file individuals who make God weep every time they open their mouths for all the lies they tell and all the hate they spew in his name.

For example, consider these photos taken outside the 2003 Mesa, Arizona Easter pageant.

Yeah - that was an actual banner some "Good Christian" had on display.

Or then we have these individuals, who dressed up as LDS missionaries in order to deceive passers-by:

If you guys have so much dirt on us, then why resort to lying to people?

And these aren't isolated bits, either. Author Allen Wyatt has several image galleries of "Good Christians" at work protesting outside of LDS facilities, including one infamous video in which a street preacher is shown throwing a Book of Mormon around and daring people to come get it from him.

And people wonder why so many folks are getting so disgusted with mainline Christianity...

 

[drstevej]

I should know, considering that I've dealt with quite a few of these cons and know-nothings over the years.

List the ones you have personally dealt with.

 

[ToBeLoved]

*starts laughing*

Oh wait, you were serious, weren't you?

*laughs harder*

Maybe it's time for you to examine your own mainline Christian fellows for a while. If you did, then maybe you'd see that the Christian counter-cult movement is an even worse hub of skive and villainy than Mos Eisley.

You see, the way the Christian counter-cult works is this: all a person needs is a grudge, an angle, and some convincing-sounding "sources". If they do a slick enough job of packaging it all, they can rope suckers in and part them from their money. It's an even bigger scam than the televangelist movement.

I should know, considering that I've dealt with quite a few of these cons and know-nothings over the years.

Why are you always asking us to judge others?

It's odd


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ToBeLoved]

I've been showing source after source the entire time I've been posting on this site.

And may of those sources, BTW, are non-Mormon entities.

For example, consider the Mosser-Owen Report from the 1997 Evangelical Theological Society Far West Annual Meeting. Mosser and Owen did a survey of pro- and anti-LDS literature that was available at the time, and found themselves gobsmacked by what they saw. To quote them:

We hope by this point we have convinced some of our readers that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is currently producing a robust apologetic for their beliefs. Their scholars are qualified, ambitious, and prolific. What are we doing in response? The silence has become deafening. And it is getting louder. The only two significant attempts (apart from the Tanners) are one article by James White and a recent book by Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon.

White's work is ripped apart for being full of straw arguments, while the Ankerberg & Weldon work "is among the ugliest, most unchristian, and misleading polemics in print." M&O ultimately concluded that unless mainline Christianity got off its lazy backside and started using actual research in the place of hate speech and strawmen, we were eventually going to win.


Or we have the University of Missouri - Kansas City's profiles on such ignoble individuals as Ed Decker and Walter Martin, both of whom are pretty clearly exposed as liars and con artists... and both of whom are still regarded as prominent members of the Christian counter-cult movement and still hailed as being in good standing and proud examples of what a "good Christian" should be.

Martha Beck? Writer's Digest compared her to James Frey and Frank McCourt.

Bill Schnobelen? Masonic Info tried - and failed - to reconcile his personal history, the failure stemming from the fact that he himself never gives the same timeline of events twice.

Alberto Rivera? Another liar. He says he fled his native Spain because the Vatican was trying to kill him, but in reality he was fleeing outstanding arrest warrants for fraud and other crimes.

Jack Chick? I'll let his own words condemn him. The tract I linked you to, "Lisa", got so much heat even from his own followers that Chick Publications was forced to throw this one down the memory hole.

Then we have the countless rank-and-file individuals who make God weep every time they open their mouths for all the lies they tell and all the hate they spew in his name.

For example, consider these photos taken outside the 2003 Mesa, Arizona Easter pageant.

Yeah - that was an actual banner some "Good Christian" had on display.

Or then we have these individuals, who dressed up as LDS missionaries in order to deceive passers-by:

If you guys have so much dirt on us, then why resort to lying to people?

And these aren't isolated bits, either. Author Allen Wyatt has several image galleries of "Good Christians" at work protesting outside of LDS facilities, including one infamous video in which a street preacher is shown throwing a Book of Mormon around and daring people to come get it from him.

And people wonder why so many folks are getting so disgusted with mainline Christianity...

You think you are the only person persecuted for your faith? Lol. Your not that special.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jane_Doe]

List the ones you have personally dealt with.

I have dealt personally with many of the works "good Christians" Ironhold listed. I really do wonder why "good Christians" so often use these works (full of lies, strawmans, demo ozone, etc) to attempt to convince me that they are the true disciples of Christ.

 

[Rescued One]

For example, consider these photos taken outside the 2003 Mesa, Arizona Easter pageant.

Yeah - that was an actual banner some "Good Christian" had on display.

Your grudge is showing. You are sarcastically name-calling without even knowing how God will judge them. Prove to me that those people are Christians.

If you guys have so much dirt on us, then why resort to lying to people?

Liars go to hell. Those who bear false witness, such as you are doing when you say, "You guys...," might end up keeping them company.

 

[Rescued One]

I have dealt personally with many of the works "good Christians" Ironhold listed. I really do wonder why "good Christians" so often use these works (full of lies, strawmans, demo ozone, etc) to attempt to convince me that they are the true disciples of Christ.

Is a "good Christian" a Christian? How do you know?

 

[Jane_Doe]

Is a "good Christian" a Christian? How do you know?

Let's look at their own claims:

Ed Decker (one of the people Ironhold listed) describes himself as "Ed Decker is Director of Saints Alive, bringing the gospel to those lost in spiritual darkness. A Mormon who became a born-again Christian. A well known author on Mormonism and Masonry, he now has 4 novels in the works. www.eddecker.com Ed is a 75 year old retired pastor, teaching, preaching, going to hospitals to pray for the sick, works with seniors and the men of the church, counseling and encouraging. Ed and his wife, Carol have 7 children, 13 grandchildren, 2 great grand children."

Source: http://eddeckersblog.blogspot.com