Adam: the Father of Jesus Christ

"Kater" <?@#&.com> wrote in message

news:13fh5ec374rfc6e@corp.supernews.com...

> Aaron Kim wrote:

>

>> "The Church and the Gospel" by Ogden Kraut

>>

>> Chapter 13

>> THE BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD

>>

>> The Pre-Existence

>>

>> An individual's right to bear the Priesthood in this life was

>> determined by experiences that occurred in the Pre-Existence.

>

> Here is where your argument goes awry.

>

> The Bible declares that God waited until the sixth day to create Adam

> and Eve, whom it teaches were the original parents of mankind. Now a man

> certainly cannot exist prior to his existence, and it is doubly absurd

> to speak of a man existing "in a probationary state" in the immediate

> presence of God, since God cannot tolerate the least degree of sin. That

> is why Ogden Kraut's argument makes no sense to educated Christians.

You don't seem to understand the doctrine of the Pre-Existence. Before we

were born in the flesh in mortality, we were already alive in a spirit body

in the Pre-Existence. In the Pre-Existence, we were trained in every type of

knowledge. Everything that makes us who we are, our intelligence, our

personality, our physical makeup, all of these were developed before we were

born. This explains the differences in talents and races. Here are some

scriptures to back that up. This doctrine was restored by Joseph Smith in

the modern dispensation of the Gospel as He unfolded many mysteries of

heavens that your Catholic priests never could answer because they do not

receive revelation the same way Joseph Smith did nor do they believe in

revelation thinking that it has been done away with Jesus and His Apostles.

7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall

RETURN unto God who gave it.

Ecclesiastes 12:7

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for

joy?

Job 38:7

9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we

gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the

Father of spirits, and live?

Hebrew 12:9

5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest

forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto

the nations.

Jeremiah 1:5

If evolution/Darwinism, is correct there would have been death long

before Adam's existence which contradicts scripture because it was through

Adam's disobedience to God in eating of the fruit that sin and consequently

death entered the world. Also, the scriptures say when Jesus returns there

will be new heavens and a new earth. If it took billions of years for the

original heavens and earth to be formed, will the new ones take the same

billions of years as well? The Bible says that we will be resurrected in a

"twinkling of an eye" (1 Corinthians 15) but how is that possible if it took

billions of years for the first human bodies to evolve, huh? Also where are

all the pre-Adamite transitional fossils? There aren't any. None.

Just because a lot of agenda driven atheist scientists say Darwinism is

true doesn't make it true. The acceptation of evolution by the general

public is due to "group think" mentality that something must be true because

everyone believes in it. The Darwinist scientist will use a lot of fancy

terminology to connive you to believe in a theory that is NOT empirical but

a common sense glance of it shows that it is just man made nonsense.

Let's examine Darwinism. It's built on the concept of natural selection.

NS says in a specific environment an organism has traits that will help it

survive over those that don't and will successfully reproduce more often.

For example, an animal with thick fur in a cold climate will survive over

those with thin fur. Eventually, all thin furred animals will be extinct.

However, this process can on forever but it will NEVER transform the animal

into another specie!

Evolution requires new genetic information that did not exist at all

before in its system. They say well it's mutations that create new

information and NS works off it. This is asinine. Mutations do not create

new beneficial information it destroys it! Mutations are random changes to

genetic structure. Like an earthquake will not organize a building it will

disrupt it. Mutations only cause deformities and death if not neutral.

Examples are cancer, cerebral palsy, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia,

conjoined twins, etc.

> Worse, you cannot logically cite L-dS scripture against the Bible, since

> L-dS scripture is contradicted by the Book of Mormon, which clearly states

> (ala John 1:1-3) that Christ created everything and everyone in the

> heavens and earth, including "the first man" Adam. Hence Adam COULD NOT

> have been God, and no man COULD have existed prior to Adam on the sixth

> day. The Book of Mormon even goes on to say, "Adam fell that men might

> be"; hence none of the children of men COULD have existed prior to Adam's

> expulsion from the Garden, if the Book of Mormon is to be believed. That

> is why Ogden Kraut's argument makes no sense to educated Mormons.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was

God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that

was made.

John 1:1-3

For those not in the know or are confused on the subject, you are referring

to the Adam God doctrine taught by Brigham Young who was taught this

doctrine along with a few trusted others by Joseph Smith. Here it is:

Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and

sinner! When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into

it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him.

He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the archangel,

the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken. HE is

our FATHER and our GOD, and the Only God with whom WE have to do. Every

man upon the earth, professing Christians and non-professing, must hear

it, and will know it sooner or later . . . When Adam and Eve had eaten

of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects and

therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived

the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was

not begotten of the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first

of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by

his Father in heaven . . . Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the

flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Ede, and who is

our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause

before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for

they will prove their salvation or damnation. (Journal of Discourses,

1:50-51 1854)

So yes through Christ all things were made. But Christ could not create Adam

because Adam is the Father of Jesus from the Pre-Existence and Father in the

flesh. How is it that Jesus could be called the First Born but also Only

Begotten since First obviously implies that there is a 2nd, a 3rd, a 4th,

etc. Christ was the first born spirit offspring of Father Adam in the

Pre-Existence out of all spirit offsprings. Through the help of Christ, Adam

was able to organize the earth. So Christ could not create Adam because Adam

is the Father of Jesus! Now Christ is called the Only Begotten because He is

the only person ever born in the flesh who was personally fathered by the

Father Himself. Everyone else like you and me or Joseph Smith had some other

normal human being father us.

On Sep 25, 10:34 pm, "Aaron Kim" <aa...@artbulla.com> wrote:

> "Kater" <?@#&.com> wrote in message

>

> news:13fh5ec374rfc6e@corp.supernews.com...

>

>

>

> > Aaron Kim wrote:

>

> >> "The Church and the Gospel" by Ogden Kraut

>

> >> Chapter 13

> >> THE BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD

>

> >> The Pre-Existence

>

> >> An individual's right to bear the Priesthood in this life was

> >> determined by experiences that occurred in the Pre-Existence.

>

> > Here is where your argument goes awry.

>

> > The Bible declares that God waited until the sixth day to create Adam

> > and Eve, whom it teaches were the original parents of mankind. Now a man

> > certainly cannot exist prior to his existence, and it is doubly absurd

> > to speak of a man existing "in a probationary state" in the immediate

> > presence of God, since God cannot tolerate the least degree of sin. That

> > is why Ogden Kraut's argument makes no sense to educated Christians.

>

> You don't seem to understand the doctrine of the Pre-Existence. Before we

> were born in the flesh in mortality, we were already alive in a spirit body

> in the Pre-Existence. In the Pre-Existence, we were trained in every type of

> knowledge. Everything that makes us who we are, our intelligence, our

> personality, our physical makeup, all of these were developed before we were

> born. This explains the differences in talents and races. Here are some

> scriptures to back that up. This doctrine was restored by Joseph Smith in

> the modern dispensation of the Gospel as He unfolded many mysteries of

> heavens that your Catholic priests never could answer because they do not

> receive revelation the same way Joseph Smith did nor do they believe in

> revelation thinking that it has been done away with Jesus and His Apostles.

>

> 7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall

> RETURN unto God who gave it.

> Ecclesiastes 12:7

>

> 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for

> joy?

> Job 38:7

>

> 9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we

> gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the

> Father of spirits, and live?

> Hebrew 12:9

>

> 5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest

> forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto

> the nations.

> Jeremiah 1:5

>

> If evolution/Darwinism, is correct there would have been death long

> before Adam's existence which contradicts scripture because it was through

> Adam's disobedience to God in eating of the fruit that sin and consequently

> death entered the world. Also, the scriptures say when Jesus returns there

> will be new heavens and a new earth. If it took billions of years for the

> original heavens and earth to be formed, will the new ones take the same

> billions of years as well? The Bible says that we will be resurrected in a

> "twinkling of an eye" (1 Corinthians 15) but how is that possible if it took

> billions of years for the first human bodies to evolve, huh? Also where are

> all the pre-Adamite transitional fossils? There aren't any. None.

> Just because a lot of agenda driven atheist scientists say Darwinism is

> true doesn't make it true. The acceptation of evolution by the general

> public is due to "group think" mentality that something must be true because

> everyone believes in it. The Darwinist scientist will use a lot of fancy

> terminology to connive you to believe in a theory that is NOT empirical but

> a common sense glance of it shows that it is just man made nonsense.

> Let's examine Darwinism. It's built on the concept of natural selection.

> NS says in a specific environment an organism has traits that will help it

> survive over those that don't and will successfully reproduce more often.

> For example, an animal with thick fur in a cold climate will survive over

> those with thin fur. Eventually, all thin furred animals will be extinct.

> However, this process can on forever but it will NEVER transform the animal

> into another specie!

> Evolution requires new genetic information that did not exist at all

> before in its system. They say well it's mutations that create new

> information and NS works off it. This is asinine. Mutations do not create

> new beneficial information it destroys it! Mutations are random changes to

> genetic structure. Like an earthquake will not organize a building it will

> disrupt it. Mutations only cause deformities and death if not neutral.

> Examples are cancer, cerebral palsy, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia,

> conjoined twins, etc.

>

> > Worse, you cannot logically cite L-dS scripture against the Bible, since

> > L-dS scripture is contradicted by the Book of Mormon, which clearly states

> > (ala John 1:1-3) that Christ created everything and everyone in the

> > heavens and earth, including "the first man" Adam. Hence Adam COULD NOT

> > have been God, and no man COULD have existed prior to Adam on the sixth

> > day. The Book of Mormon even goes on to say, "Adam fell that men might

> > be"; hence none of the children of men COULD have existed prior to Adam's

> > expulsion from the Garden, if the Book of Mormon is to be believed. That

> > is why Ogden Kraut's argument makes no sense to educated Mormons.

>

> 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was

> God.

> 2 The same was in the beginning with God.

> 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that

> was made.

> John 1:1-3

>

> For those not in the know or are confused on the subject, you are referring

> to the Adam God doctrine taught by Brigham Young who was taught this

> doctrine along with a few trusted others by Joseph Smith. Here it is:

>

> Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and

> sinner! When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into

> it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him.

> He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the archangel,

> the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken. HE is

> our FATHER and our GOD, and the Only God with whom WE have to do. Every

> man upon the earth, professing Christians and non-professing, must hear

> it, and will know it sooner or later . . . When Adam and Eve had eaten

> of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects and

> therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived

> the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was

> not begotten of the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first

> of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by

> his Father in heaven . . . Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the

> flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Ede, and who is

> our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause

> before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for

> they will prove their salvation or damnation. (Journal of Discourses,

> 1:50-51 1854)

>

> So yes through Christ all things were made. But Christ could not create Adam

> because Adam is the Father of Jesus from the Pre-Existence and Father in the

> flesh. How is it that Jesus could be called the First Born but also Only

> Begotten since First obviously implies that there is a 2nd, a 3rd, a 4th,

> etc. Christ was the first born spirit offspring of Father Adam in the

> Pre-Existence out of all spirit offsprings. Through the help of Christ, Adam

> was able to organize the earth. So Christ could not create Adam because Adam

> is the Father of Jesus! Now Christ is called the Only Begotten because He is

> the only person ever born in the flesh who was personally fathered by the

> Father Himself. Everyone else like you and me or Joseph Smith had some other

> normal human being father us.

This is so nuts it makes new-age crap looks sane. How would you like

to be a poster boy for atheism, "Aaron Kim"?

Olrik

One fine day in alt.atheism, "Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> bloodied us

up with this:

> You don't seem to understand the doctrine of the Pre-Existence.

Fuck doctrine, let's look at facts. Jebus was never mentioned until the NT

was written. He is not a construct of the book that was written a thousand

years before.

--

Uncle Vic

aa Atheist #2011

Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped

chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.

Convicted by Earthquack.

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:31:29 -0700, Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sep 25, 10:34 pm, "Aaron Kim" <aa...@artbulla.com> wrote:

>> "Kater" <?@#&.com> wrote in message

:

>> etc. Christ was the first born spirit offspring of Father Adam in the

>> Pre-Existence out of all spirit offsprings. Through the help of Christ, Adam

>> was able to organize the earth. So Christ could not create Adam because Adam

>> is the Father of Jesus! Now Christ is called the Only Begotten because He is

>> the only person ever born in the flesh who was personally fathered by the

>> Father Himself. Everyone else like you and me or Joseph Smith had some other

>> normal human being father us.

>

>This is so nuts it makes new-age crap looks sane. How would you like

>to be a poster boy for atheism, "Aaron Kim"?

Too late.

He already is.

I count 1,503 Mormons turned over to staunch atheism so far.

On Sep 26, 12:13 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:31:29 -0700, Olrik <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >On Sep 25, 10:34 pm, "Aaron Kim" <aa...@artbulla.com> wrote:

> >> "Kater" <?@#&.com> wrote in message

>

> :

>

> >> etc. Christ was the first born spirit offspring of Father Adam in the

> >> Pre-Existence out of all spirit offsprings. Through the help of Christ, Adam

> >> was able to organize the earth. So Christ could not create Adam because Adam

> >> is the Father of Jesus! Now Christ is called the Only Begotten because He is

> >> the only person ever born in the flesh who was personally fathered by the

> >> Father Himself. Everyone else like you and me or Joseph Smith had some other

> >> normal human being father us.

>

> >This is so nuts it makes new-age crap looks sane. How would you like

> >to be a poster boy for atheism, "Aaron Kim"?

>

> Too late.

> He already is.

> I count 1,503 Mormons turned over to staunch atheism so far.

We like to keep them around on ARM because he is a good example of

what religion does to the brain.

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:34:28 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:

> You don't seem to understand the doctrine of the Pre-Existence.

You don't seem to understand where you're cross posting.

--

Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423

EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion

------------------------------------------------------------

"Warned you we tried! Listen you did not! Now screwed

we will all be!"

http://www.sequentialpictures.com/moviestarwarsepisode3.html

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 07:44:31 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"

<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:

>On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:34:28 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:

>

>> You don't seem to understand the doctrine of the Pre-Existence.

>

>You don't seem to understand where you're cross posting.

He doesn't seem to understand.

You need to see a psychiatrist. Your brain is garbled!

"Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> wrote in message

news:5ltuptF8elvuU1@mid.individual.net...

>

>

> "Kater" <?@#&.com> wrote in message

> news:13fh5ec374rfc6e@corp.supernews.com...

>> Aaron Kim wrote:

>>

>>> "The Church and the Gospel" by Ogden Kraut

>>>

>>> Chapter 13

>>> THE BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD

>>>

>>> The Pre-Existence

>>>

>>> An individual's right to bear the Priesthood in this life was

>>> determined by experiences that occurred in the Pre-Existence.

>>

>> Here is where your argument goes awry.

>>

>> The Bible declares that God waited until the sixth day to create Adam

>> and Eve, whom it teaches were the original parents of mankind. Now a man

>> certainly cannot exist prior to his existence, and it is doubly absurd

>> to speak of a man existing "in a probationary state" in the immediate

>> presence of God, since God cannot tolerate the least degree of sin. That

>> is why Ogden Kraut's argument makes no sense to educated Christians.

>

> You don't seem to understand the doctrine of the Pre-Existence. Before we

> were born in the flesh in mortality, we were already alive in a spirit

> body in the Pre-Existence. In the Pre-Existence, we were trained in every

> type of knowledge. Everything that makes us who we are, our intelligence,

> our personality, our physical makeup, all of these were developed before

> we were born. This explains the differences in talents and races. Here are

> some scriptures to back that up. This doctrine was restored by Joseph

> Smith in the modern dispensation of the Gospel as He unfolded many

> mysteries of heavens that your Catholic priests never could answer because

> they do not receive revelation the same way Joseph Smith did nor do they

> believe in revelation thinking that it has been done away with Jesus and

> His Apostles.

>

> 7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall

> RETURN unto God who gave it.

> Ecclesiastes 12:7

>

> 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted

> for joy?

> Job 38:7

>

> 9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we

> gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the

> Father of spirits, and live?

> Hebrew 12:9

>

> 5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest

> forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet

> unto the nations.

> Jeremiah 1:5

>

> If evolution/Darwinism, is correct there would have been death long

> before Adam's existence which contradicts scripture because it was through

> Adam's disobedience to God in eating of the fruit that sin and

> consequently death entered the world. Also, the scriptures say when Jesus

> returns there will be new heavens and a new earth. If it took billions of

> years for the original heavens and earth to be formed, will the new ones

> take the same billions of years as well? The Bible says that we will be

> resurrected in a "twinkling of an eye" (1 Corinthians 15) but how is that

> possible if it took billions of years for the first human bodies to

> evolve, huh? Also where are all the pre-Adamite transitional fossils?

> There aren't any. None.

> Just because a lot of agenda driven atheist scientists say Darwinism is

> true doesn't make it true. The acceptation of evolution by the general

> public is due to "group think" mentality that something must be true

> because everyone believes in it. The Darwinist scientist will use a lot of

> fancy terminology to connive you to believe in a theory that is NOT

> empirical but a common sense glance of it shows that it is just man made

> nonsense.

> Let's examine Darwinism. It's built on the concept of natural

> selection. NS says in a specific environment an organism has traits that

> will help it survive over those that don't and will successfully reproduce

> more often. For example, an animal with thick fur in a cold climate will

> survive over those with thin fur. Eventually, all thin furred animals will

> be extinct. However, this process can on forever but it will NEVER

> transform the animal into another specie!

> Evolution requires new genetic information that did not exist at all

> before in its system. They say well it's mutations that create new

> information and NS works off it. This is asinine. Mutations do not create

> new beneficial information it destroys it! Mutations are random changes to

> genetic structure. Like an earthquake will not organize a building it will

> disrupt it. Mutations only cause deformities and death if not neutral.

> Examples are cancer, cerebral palsy, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia,

> conjoined twins, etc.

>

>

>> Worse, you cannot logically cite L-dS scripture against the Bible,

>> since L-dS scripture is contradicted by the Book of Mormon, which clearly

>> states (ala John 1:1-3) that Christ created everything and everyone in

>> the heavens and earth, including "the first man" Adam. Hence Adam COULD

>> NOT have been God, and no man COULD have existed prior to Adam on the

>> sixth day. The Book of Mormon even goes on to say, "Adam fell that men

>> might be"; hence none of the children of men COULD have existed prior

>> to Adam's expulsion from the Garden, if the Book of Mormon is to be

>> believed. That is why Ogden Kraut's argument makes no sense to educated

>> Mormons.

>

> 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word

> was God.

> 2 The same was in the beginning with God.

> 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that

> was made.

> John 1:1-3

>

>

> For those not in the know or are confused on the subject, you are

> referring to the Adam God doctrine taught by Brigham Young who was taught

> this doctrine along with a few trusted others by Joseph Smith. Here it is:

>

> Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and

> sinner! When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into

> it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him.

> He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the archangel,

> the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken. HE is

> our FATHER and our GOD, and the Only God with whom WE have to do. Every

> man upon the earth, professing Christians and non-professing, must hear

> it, and will know it sooner or later . . . When Adam and Eve had eaten

> of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects and

> therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived

> the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was

> not begotten of the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first

> of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by

> his Father in heaven . . . Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the

> flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Ede, and who is

> our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause

> before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for

> they will prove their salvation or damnation. (Journal of Discourses,

> 1:50-51 1854)

>

> So yes through Christ all things were made. But Christ could not create

> Adam because Adam is the Father of Jesus from the Pre-Existence and Father

> in the flesh. How is it that Jesus could be called the First Born but also

> Only Begotten since First obviously implies that there is a 2nd, a 3rd, a

> 4th, etc. Christ was the first born spirit offspring of Father Adam in the

> Pre-Existence out of all spirit offsprings. Through the help of Christ,

> Adam was able to organize the earth. So Christ could not create Adam

> because Adam is the Father of Jesus! Now Christ is called the Only

> Begotten because He is the only person ever born in the flesh who was

> personally fathered by the Father Himself. Everyone else like you and me

> or Joseph Smith had some other normal human being father us.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:34:28 -0700, "Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com>

wrote:

>You don't seem to understand the doctrine of the Pre-Existence.

We understand it, we just don't accept it any more than we accept the

rest of your bullashit.

--

Al at Webdingers dot com

"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at

Bozo the Clown."

- Carl Sagan

Aaron Kim wrote:

> "Kater" <?@#&.com> wrote

>> Aaron Kim wrote:

>>> "The Church and the Gospel" by Ogden Kraut

>>> Chapter 13

>>> THE BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD

>>>

>>> The Pre-Existence

>>>

>>> An individual's right to bear the Priesthood in this life was

>>> determined by experiences that occurred in the Pre-Existence.

>>

>>

>> Here is where your argument goes awry.

>>

>> The Bible declares that God waited until the sixth day to create

>> Adam and Eve, whom it teaches were the original parents of mankind.

>> Now a man certainly cannot exist prior to his existence, and it is

>> doubly absurd to speak of a man existing "in a probationary state" in

>> the immediate presence of God, since God cannot tolerate the least

>> degree of sin. That is why Ogden Kraut's argument makes no sense to

>> educated Christians.

>

>

> You don't seem to understand the doctrine of the Pre-Existence.

I understand it is incompatible with the Book of Mormon and the

Bible, which means it cannot be reasonably asserted by Mormons.

> Before we were born in the flesh in mortality, we were

> already alive in a spirit body in the Pre-Existence.

With God, of course. (John 1:1) But if so, then God had already

judged all men sinless and worthy of His presence; hence God would have

been unjust in 1- casting humanity out of his presence and 2- consigning

them to this evil world.

> In the Pre-Existence, we were trained

> in every type of knowledge. Everything that makes us who we are, our

> intelligence, our personality, our physical makeup, all of these were

> developed before we were born. This explains the differences in talents

> and races.

Humans have been inventing false explanations since the invention of

language. This doctrine requires an anomaly in Mormonism: the

contradiction of previous revelations. Why would God promote the Book of

Mormon and the Bible, only to later prove them false?

> Here are some scriptures to back that up. ...

None of them actually does, and I note you found nothing in the Book

of Mormon.

> 7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit

> shall RETURN unto God who gave it.

> Ecclesiastes 12:7

God obviously gives "the spirit" (Hebrew: HaRUacH "breath, wind")

after the baby's emergence from the mother, as anyone can see who

witnesses a successful delivery.

> 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted

> for joy?

> Job 38:7

Morning stars and sons of God are the angels. The terminology

obviously distinguishes from the sons of men, or of Adam. The expected

answer to the rhetorical question is obviously that Job was not there.

> 9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and

> we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto

> the Father of spirits, and live?

> Hebrew 12:9

The Father of spirits is obviously God. There is no suggestion that

they are men in a pre-existence.

> 5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest

> forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet

> unto the nations.

> Jeremiah 1:5

Obviously a statement of the divine prescience and predestination of

Jeremiah, which does not suggest the absurdity that Jeremiah pre-existed

himself. (Isaiah 41:26 46:10 48:3,5; par 1 Nephi 20:3,5; 1 Nephi 9:6

"the Lord knoweth all things from the beginning")

> If evolution/Darwinism, is correct there would have been death long

> before Adam's existence which contradicts scripture because it was

> through Adam's disobedience to God in eating of the fruit that sin and

> consequently death entered the world.

The story about Adam is not literal history, Aaron. The Book of

Mormon itself rejects the notion that the children of Adam have been

here on the earth in a probationary state for only six thousand years.

(Helaman 8:18) This contradicts the "revelations" of Joseph Smith,

Junior, to the contrary. (D&C 77:6f,10,12f) So you've got to get over

this idea that Smith was "educating" people with facts, when in fact he

was looking for weak-minded people to confuse and deceive.

> Also, the scriptures say when

> Jesus returns there will be new heavens and a new earth. If it took

> billions of years for the original heavens and earth to be formed, will

> the new ones take the same billions of years as well?

This is figurative language, Aaron, suggesting worldwide revolution

for the better. If you were to take what the Bible says about the

physical universe literally, you would have to believe in a universe

that consists of a flat earth with corners, enclosed under a crystalline

vault with the sun as a relatively small disk rising and falling over a

fixed surface, and with the stars as points of light attached to the

vault. To its credit, the Book of Mormon denies this view. Mormons

should follow suit and not only deny every false interpretation of the

Bible, but every false revelation promoted by false prophets and con

man, including Joseph Smith.

>The Bible says

> that we will be resurrected in a "twinkling of an eye" (1 Corinthians

> 15) but how is that possible if it took billions of years for the first

> human bodies to evolve, huh? Also where are all the pre-Adamite

> transitional fossils? There aren't any. None.

Here are several:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates

> Just because a lot of agenda driven atheist scientists say Darwinism

> is true doesn't make it true. The acceptation of evolution by the

> general public is due to "group think" mentality that something must be

> true because everyone believes in it. The Darwinist scientist will use a

> lot of fancy terminology to connive you to believe in a theory that is

> NOT empirical but a common sense glance of it shows that it is just man

> made nonsense.

Are you kidding? A "common sense glance" also tells you the world is

flat. Accepting Darwinism as a fact, however, does not require one to

become a reductionist, i.e., to consider man as nothing more than a heap

of slime.

> Let's examine Darwinism. It's built on the concept of natural

> selection. NS says in a specific environment an organism has traits that

> will help it survive over those that don't and will successfully

> reproduce more often. For example, an animal with thick fur in a cold

> climate will survive over those with thin fur. Eventually, all thin

> furred animals will be extinct. However, this process can on forever but

> it will NEVER transform the animal into another specie!

> Evolution requires new genetic information that did not exist at all

> before in its system. They say well it's mutations that create new

> information and NS works off it. This is asinine. Mutations do not

> create new beneficial information it destroys it!

How do you know this is always the case? What science do you have

to prove that no mutation can ever provide any useful information?

> Mutations are random

> changes to genetic structure. Like an earthquake will not organize a

> building it will disrupt it.

Mutations are not earthquakes, but please do show that earth

movements never provide beneficial changes in the environment, anywhere.

> Mutations only cause deformities and death

> if not neutral. Examples are cancer, cerebral palsy, cystic fibrosis,

> sickle cell anemia, conjoined twins, etc.

Mutations happen all the time, because a fraction of the molecules

in any sample of genetic material is always in decay, but I wasn't

aware there was a new law of nature that condemns every mutation to be

harmful. A "common sense glance" would suggest there are beneficial

mutations.

>> Worse, you cannot logically cite L-dS scripture against the Bible,

>> since L-dS scripture is contradicted by the Book of Mormon, which

>> clearly states (ala John 1:1-3) that Christ created everything and

>> everyone in the heavens and earth, including "the first man" Adam.

>> Hence Adam COULD NOT have been God, and no man COULD have existed

>> prior to Adam on the sixth day. The Book of Mormon even goes on to

>> say, "Adam fell that men might be"; hence none of the children of

>> men COULD have existed prior to Adam's expulsion from the Garden, if

>> the Book of Mormon is to be believed. That is why Ogden Kraut's

>> argument makes no sense to educated Mormons.

>

>

> 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word

> was God.

> 2 The same was in the beginning with God.

> 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made

> that was made.

> John 1:1-3

>

>

> For those not in the know or are confused on the subject, you are

> referring to the Adam God doctrine taught by Brigham Young who was

> taught this doctrine along with a few trusted others by Joseph Smith.

> Here it is:

Brigham Young is one those false prophets I was talking about.

>

> Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and

> sinner! When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into

> it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him.

> He helped to make and organize this world.

Adam only helped to make the world, but John 1:2 says of Christ

"All things were made by him."

> He is MICHAEL, the archangel,

> the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken. HE is

> our FATHER and our GOD, and the Only God with whom WE have to do. Every

The Book of Mormon, of course, says our God is only one God, and

he is Christ. This is why reasonable Mormons reject Young's doctrines as

the confused and incoherent opinions of a poorly educated man out of

touch with any Higher Intelligence.

> man upon the earth, professing Christians and non-professing, must hear

> it, and will know it sooner or later . . . When Adam and Eve had eaten

> of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects and

> therefore their offspring were mortal.

By the same logic, had eaten of the tree of Life, their offspring

would have been immortal, suggesting that Adam and Eve were merely too

stupid to eat the right fruit.

> When the Virgin Mary conceived

> the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was

> not begotten of the Holy Ghost.

Another problem with this is that Christ was God's Only Begotten,

but we are told that Adam begot Cain, Abel, and Seth, hence Christ could

not have been Adam's "only begotten," if Brigham is to be believed.

> And who is the Father? He is the first

> of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by

> his Father in heaven

But the Book of Mormon says Christ is the only God (Alma 11:29,38)

and that God made Adam. (Alma 22:12)

> . . . Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the

> flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Ede, and who is

> our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause

> before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for

> they will prove their salvation or damnation. (Journal of Discourses,

> 1:50-51 1854)

Got that? Mankind will be damned for believing the Book of Mormon!

Brigham Young was certainly a bane on Mormonism.

> So yes through Christ all things were made. But Christ could not create

> Adam because Adam is the Father of Jesus from the Pre-Existence and

> Father in the flesh.

Man was created by Jesus Christ, who is God, i.e., the Father and

the Son:

Behold, I AM JESUS CHRIST.

I am the Father and the Son. ...

MAN HAVE I CREATED after the

body of my spirit

--Ether 3:14-16 (circa 2000 BC)

Now, logically, Adam cannot have "created" man if Christ did; hence,

the "man" whom Christ created must refer to Adam.

> How is it that Jesus could be called the First Born

For your information, the Book of Mormon never refers to Christ as

the First born.

The Bible, however, refers to Jesus as the first man to rise (be

born) from the dead, which obviously cannot refer to Christ before he

was a man, in his pre-existence.

He is the head of the body, the church;

he is the beginning,

the first-born from the dead,

that in everything he might be pre-eminent.

--Col. 1:18

> but also Only Begotten since First obviously implies that there is a

> 2nd, a 3rd, a 4th, etc.

Jesus was raised first, to be followed by everyone else.

> Christ was the first born spirit offspring of

> Father Adam in the Pre-Existence out of all spirit offsprings.

Good grief.

> Through

> the help of Christ, Adam was able to organize the earth.

No, Brigham says (in your quote above) that Adam was the one who

"helped." I suppose he meant that Adam and Christ helped someone else.

Perhaps you should look into becoming a Jehovah's witness next. Problem

is, they believe Michael was Christ.

> So Christ could

> not create Adam because Adam is the Father of Jesus!

Contrary to the Book of Mormon. Why would you and Art Bulla want

people to believe a book so untrue?

> Now Christ is

> called the Only Begotten because He is the only person ever born in the

> flesh who was personally fathered by the Father Himself.

He is called the "Only begotten," because He was unique: the only Son

ever begotten by God. His Father cannot be Adam, of course, since Adam

had already begotten Cain, Abel, and Seth.

> Everyone else

> like you and me or Joseph Smith had some other normal human being father

> us.

I'm curious: 1- Why do you feel God has to be Adam in order to

father Jesus in the flesh? 2- Why would Almighty God have to use sexual

intercourse to produce a man's body? 3- Why only once? and, 4- Why with

a woman betrothed to someone else?

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:39:09 +0100, "wmech" <wmech@bellsouth.net>

wrote:

>You need to see a psychiatrist. Your brain is garbled!

He claims to have done so on numerous occasions.

It hasn't worked.

On Sep 27, 7:33 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:39:09 +0100, "wmech" <wm...@bellsouth.net>

> wrote:

>

> >You need to see a psychiatrist. Your brain is garbled!

>

> He claims to have done so on numerous occasions.

> It hasn't worked.

It might have helped if he didn't flee the country when they were

about to institutionalize him.

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:18:40 -0000, john p <john.phile@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Sep 27, 7:33 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:39:09 +0100, "wmech" <wm...@bellsouth.net>

>> wrote:

>>

>> >You need to see a psychiatrist. Your brain is garbled!

>>

>> He claims to have done so on numerous occasions.

>> It hasn't worked.

>

>

>It might have helped if he didn't flee the country when they were

>about to institutionalize him.

You may well be referring to his lover and bum-buddy: Art Bullashit.

Kater wrote:

<snip>

>> 7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit

>> shall RETURN unto God who gave it.

>> Ecclesiastes 12:7

>

>

> God obviously gives "the spirit" (Hebrew: HaRUacH "breath, wind")

> after the baby's emergence from the mother, as anyone can see who

> witnesses a successful delivery.

<snip>

Sorry to interject here, but are you proposing that life begins at the

first breath? Do you believe that the baby in utero is not actually a

living being yet?

--

Joker

"...God hath made me to laugh, so that all that hear will laugh with me."

Gen. 21:6

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:17:41 -0500, Joker <post_master@sbcglobal.net>

wrote:

>Kater wrote:

><snip>

>>> 7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit

>>> shall RETURN unto God who gave it.

>>> Ecclesiastes 12:7

>>

>>

>> God obviously gives "the spirit" (Hebrew: HaRUacH "breath, wind")

>> after the baby's emergence from the mother, as anyone can see who

>> witnesses a successful delivery.

>

><snip>

>

>Sorry to interject here, but are you proposing that life begins at the

>first breath? Do you believe that the baby in utero is not actually a

>living being yet?

Life began 4 billion years ago and continues in an unbroken chain, but

not all forms of life are the same. Children, for instance, aren't

allowed to drive, and embryos aren't protected from being aborted.

--

Al at Webdingers dot com

"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at

Bozo the Clown."

- Carl Sagan

"john p" <john.phile@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1190963920.179303.24740@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...

> On Sep 27, 7:33 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:39:09 +0100, "wmech" <wm...@bellsouth.net>

>> wrote:

>>

>> >You need to see a psychiatrist. Your brain is garbled!

>>

>> He claims to have done so on numerous occasions.

>> It hasn't worked.

>

>

> It might have helped if he didn't flee the country when they were

> about to institutionalize him.

Art has never broken any laws and is not a fugitive. Art's wife Cathy and

his mother in law tried to commit him in a mental hospital because he said

he was receiving revelations from God. The psychiatrist who examined him

said that there was nothing wrong with him. Even his wife said that she

received a testimony that Art's a genuine prophet while she was at work that

lasted around half an hour according to what she told Art. She denied it

saying it was of the devil unfortunately. I've had quite a many spiritual

manifestations telling me Art's a prophet.

On Sep 28, 4:29 pm, "Aaron Kim" <aa...@artbulla.com> wrote:

> "john p" <john.ph...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>

> news:1190963920.179303.24740@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...

>

> > On Sep 27, 7:33 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> >> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:39:09 +0100, "wmech" <wm...@bellsouth.net>

> >> wrote:

>

> >> >You need to see a psychiatrist. Your brain is garbled!

>

> >> He claims to have done so on numerous occasions.

> >> It hasn't worked.

>

> > It might have helped if he didn't flee the country when they were

> > about to institutionalize him.

>

> Art has never broken any laws and is not a fugitive. Art's wife Cathy and

> his mother in law tried to commit him in a mental hospital because he said

> he was receiving revelations from God. The psychiatrist who examined him

> said that there was nothing wrong with him. Even his wife said that she

> received a testimony that Art's a genuine prophet while she was at work that

> lasted around half an hour according to what she told Art. She denied it

> saying it was of the devil unfortunately. I've had quite a many spiritual

> manifestations telling me Art's a prophet.

LOLOLOLOL. You are a kook.

On Sep 28, 6:53 pm, Andres64 <andres...@excite.com> wrote:

> On Sep 28, 4:29 pm, "Aaron Kim" <aa...@artbulla.com> wrote:

>

>

>

> > "john p" <john.ph...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>

> >news:1190963920.179303.24740@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...

>

> > > On Sep 27, 7:33 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> > >> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:39:09 +0100, "wmech" <wm...@bellsouth.net>

> > >> wrote:

>

> > >> >You need to see a psychiatrist. Your brain is garbled!

>

> > >> He claims to have done so on numerous occasions.

> > >> It hasn't worked.

>

> > > It might have helped if he didn't flee the country when they were

> > > about to institutionalize him.

>

> > Art has never broken any laws and is not a fugitive. Art's wife Cathy and

> > his mother in law tried to commit him in a mental hospital because he said

> > he was receiving revelations from God. The psychiatrist who examined him

> > said that there was nothing wrong with him. Even his wife said that she

> > received a testimony that Art's a genuine prophet while she was at work that

> > lasted around half an hour according to what she told Art. She denied it

> > saying it was of the devil unfortunately. I've had quite a many spiritual

> > manifestations telling me Art's a prophet.

>

> LOLOLOLOL. You are a kook.

I'm sorry. After further consideration, I take that back. You are a

gullible retard, Art is a kook.

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:34:21 -0000, Andres64 <andresc64@excite.com>

wrote:

>On Sep 28, 6:53 pm, Andres64 <andres...@excite.com> wrote:

>> On Sep 28, 4:29 pm, "Aaron Kim" <aa...@artbulla.com> wrote:

>>

>>

>>

>> > "john p" <john.ph...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>

>> >news:1190963920.179303.24740@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...

>>

>> > > On Sep 27, 7:33 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>> > >> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:39:09 +0100, "wmech" <wm...@bellsouth.net>

>> > >> wrote:

>>

>> > >> >You need to see a psychiatrist. Your brain is garbled!

>>

>> > >> He claims to have done so on numerous occasions.

>> > >> It hasn't worked.

>>

>> > > It might have helped if he didn't flee the country when they were

>> > > about to institutionalize him.

>>

>> > Art has never broken any laws and is not a fugitive. Art's wife Cathy and

>> > his mother in law tried to commit him in a mental hospital because he said

>> > he was receiving revelations from God. The psychiatrist who examined him

>> > said that there was nothing wrong with him. Even his wife said that she

>> > received a testimony that Art's a genuine prophet while she was at work that

>> > lasted around half an hour according to what she told Art. She denied it

>> > saying it was of the devil unfortunately. I've had quite a many spiritual

>> > manifestations telling me Art's a prophet.

>>

>> LOLOLOLOL. You are a kook.

>

>I'm sorry. After further consideration, I take that back. You are a

>gullible retard, Art is a kook.

No, you got it right.

Aaron is both a gullible retard, AND a 24ct KOOK.

Art is an insane con-man.

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 11:07:15 +0930, in alt.atheism

Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in

<euarf3pl9j5bc25vuar9aicd4l5ufql760@4ax.com>:

>On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:17:41 -0500, Joker <post_master@sbcglobal.net>

>wrote:

>

>>Kater wrote:

>><snip>

>>>> 7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit

>>>> shall RETURN unto God who gave it.

>>>> Ecclesiastes 12:7

>>>

>>>

>>> God obviously gives "the spirit" (Hebrew: HaRUacH "breath, wind")

>>> after the baby's emergence from the mother, as anyone can see who

>>> witnesses a successful delivery.

>>

>><snip>

>>

>>Sorry to interject here, but are you proposing that life begins at the

>>first breath? Do you believe that the baby in utero is not actually a

>>living being yet?

>

>Why do folks think that life is either fully switched on, or fully

>switched off?

>Is it they REALLY actually think such and absurd thing, or is it that

>they simply insist on projecting the lie for political advantage?

>

>Life is a continuum, with no discernable stage at which it goes from

>one to the other.

They try to switch the question from being to living. Still, even their

doctrines don't have a good answer to Monty Python's _Every Sperm is

Sacred_.

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:17:41 -0500, Joker <post_master@sbcglobal.net>

wrote:

>Kater wrote:

><snip>

>>> 7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit

>>> shall RETURN unto God who gave it.

>>> Ecclesiastes 12:7

>>

>>

>> God obviously gives "the spirit" (Hebrew: HaRUacH "breath, wind")

>> after the baby's emergence from the mother, as anyone can see who

>> witnesses a successful delivery.

>

><snip>

>

>Sorry to interject here, but are you proposing that life begins at the

>first breath? Do you believe that the baby in utero is not actually a

>living being yet?

Why do folks think that life is either fully switched on, or fully

switched off?

Is it they REALLY actually think such and absurd thing, or is it that

they simply insist on projecting the lie for political advantage?

Life is a continuum, with no discernable stage at which it goes from

one to the other.

Joker wrote:

> Kater wrote:

> <snip>

>

>>> 7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit

>>> shall RETURN unto God who gave it.

>>> Ecclesiastes 12:7

>>

>>

>>

>> God obviously gives "the spirit" (Hebrew: HaRUacH "breath, wind")

>> after the baby's emergence from the mother, as anyone can see who

>> witnesses a successful delivery.

>

>

> <snip>

>

> Sorry to interject here, but are you proposing that life begins at the

> first breath?

I'm not proposing anything, just discussing what scripture says

about it.

The Old Testament, for example, recognizes no such thing as murder

or manslaughter of a child in a pregnant mother. Nor does the New

Testament legislate any new law on the matter. According to the Bible,

therefore, the fetus is part of the mother until birth, and has no

rights of its own; hence it cannot be murdered, and only when it becomes

fully functional and independent of the mother, or life support, is it

capable of securing a right to life for itself.

This doctrine also flows from the Book of Mormon, since it has

Christ in heaven on the day before he was to be born in the flesh,

explicitly stating that he would come into the world only when he was

born: "on this night shall the sign be given [of Christ's birth], and ON

THE MORROW come I into the world." (3 Nephi 1:13) It is interesting that

the so-called Christian "right to life" movement is unsupported by

Scripture, and Mormons who align themselves with that movement deny the

clear teaching of the Book of Mormon.

> Do you believe that the baby in utero is not actually a

> living being yet?

I wouldn't be dogmatic. The physiology of the fetus is much, much

more complicated than this, and the Bible and Book of Mormon are not

free of error; so better principles might be formulated; only not on

the basis of the Bible and the Book of Mormon, as they stand.

"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message

news:od9rf3hhangism2v0deglscen2t93kcl0k@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:34:21 -0000, Andres64 <andresc64@excite.com>

> wrote:

>

>>On Sep 28, 6:53 pm, Andres64 <andres...@excite.com> wrote:

>>> On Sep 28, 4:29 pm, "Aaron Kim" <aa...@artbulla.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> > "john p" <john.ph...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>>

>>> >news:1190963920.179303.24740@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...

>>>

>>> > > On Sep 27, 7:33 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>>> > >> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:39:09 +0100, "wmech" <wm...@bellsouth.net>

>>> > >> wrote:

>>>

>>> > >> >You need to see a psychiatrist. Your brain is garbled!

>>>

>>> > >> He claims to have done so on numerous occasions.

>>> > >> It hasn't worked.

>>>

>>> > > It might have helped if he didn't flee the country when they were

>>> > > about to institutionalize him.

>>>

>>> > Art has never broken any laws and is not a fugitive. Art's wife Cathy

>>> > and

>>> > his mother in law tried to commit him in a mental hospital because he

>>> > said

>>> > he was receiving revelations from God. The psychiatrist who examined

>>> > him

>>> > said that there was nothing wrong with him. Even his wife said that

>>> > she

>>> > received a testimony that Art's a genuine prophet while she was at

>>> > work that

>>> > lasted around half an hour according to what she told Art. She denied

>>> > it

>>> > saying it was of the devil unfortunately. I've had quite a many

>>> > spiritual

>>> > manifestations telling me Art's a prophet.

>>>

>>> LOLOLOLOL. You are a kook.

>>

>>I'm sorry. After further consideration, I take that back. You are a

>>gullible retard, Art is a kook.

>

> No, you got it right.

> Aaron is both a gullible retard, AND a 24ct KOOK.

> Art is an insane con-man.

You're everything that you accused us of being.

"And we shall at last have to come to this conclusion, whatever we may think

of revelation, that without it we can neither know nor understand anything

of God, or the devil; and however unwilling the world may be to acknowledge

this principle, it is evident from the multifarious creeds and notions

concerning this matter that they understand nothing of this principle, and

it is equally as plain that without a divine communication they must remain

in ignorance. The world always mistook false prophets for true ones, and

those that were sent of God, they considered to be false prophets, and hence

they killed, stoned, punished and imprisoned the true prophets, and these

had to hide themselves "in deserts and dens, and caves of the earth," and

though the most honorable men of the earth, they banished them from their

society as vagabonds, whilst they cherished, honored and supported knaves,

vagabonds, hypocrites, impostors, and the basest of men."

(Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected and

arranged by Joseph Fielding Smith, p.205)

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:07:57 -0700, in alt.atheism

"Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> wrote in

<5na9ibFh4e2eU1@mid.individual.net>:

>

>

>"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message

>news:od9rf3hhangism2v0deglscen2t93kcl0k@4ax.com...

>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:34:21 -0000, Andres64 <andresc64@excite.com>

>> wrote:

>>

>>>On Sep 28, 6:53 pm, Andres64 <andres...@excite.com> wrote:

>>>> On Sep 28, 4:29 pm, "Aaron Kim" <aa...@artbulla.com> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> > "john p" <john.ph...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>

>>>> >news:1190963920.179303.24740@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...

>>>>

>>>> > > On Sep 27, 7:33 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>>>> > >> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:39:09 +0100, "wmech" <wm...@bellsouth.net>

>>>> > >> wrote:

>>>>

>>>> > >> >You need to see a psychiatrist. Your brain is garbled!

>>>>

>>>> > >> He claims to have done so on numerous occasions.

>>>> > >> It hasn't worked.

>>>>

>>>> > > It might have helped if he didn't flee the country when they were

>>>> > > about to institutionalize him.

>>>>

>>>> > Art has never broken any laws and is not a fugitive. Art's wife Cathy

>>>> > and

>>>> > his mother in law tried to commit him in a mental hospital because he

>>>> > said

>>>> > he was receiving revelations from God. The psychiatrist who examined

>>>> > him

>>>> > said that there was nothing wrong with him. Even his wife said that

>>>> > she

>>>> > received a testimony that Art's a genuine prophet while she was at

>>>> > work that

>>>> > lasted around half an hour according to what she told Art. She denied

>>>> > it

>>>> > saying it was of the devil unfortunately. I've had quite a many

>>>> > spiritual

>>>> > manifestations telling me Art's a prophet.

>>>>

>>>> LOLOLOLOL. You are a kook.

>>>

>>>I'm sorry. After further consideration, I take that back. You are a

>>>gullible retard, Art is a kook.

>>

>> No, you got it right.

>> Aaron is both a gullible retard, AND a 24ct KOOK.

>> Art is an insane con-man.

>

>You're everything that you accused us of being.

So you say, but have no evidence to support it with.

>

>"And we shall at last have to come to this conclusion, whatever we may think

>of revelation, that without it we can neither know nor understand anything

>of God, or the devil; and however unwilling the world may be to acknowledge

>this principle, it is evident from the multifarious creeds and notions

>concerning this matter that they understand nothing of this principle, and

>it is equally as plain that without a divine communication they must remain

>in ignorance. The world always mistook false prophets for true ones, and

>those that were sent of God, they considered to be false prophets, and hence

>they killed, stoned, punished and imprisoned the true prophets, and these

>had to hide themselves "in deserts and dens, and caves of the earth," and

>though the most honorable men of the earth, they banished them from their

>society as vagabonds, whilst they cherished, honored and supported knaves,

>vagabonds, hypocrites, impostors, and the basest of men."

>

> (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected and

>arranged by Joseph Fielding Smith, p.205)

Your religion is without evidence, just as all others are. Why are you

trying to sell your religion to us when you cannot offer a shred of

evidence to persuade us that your religion is valid?