Ahh…so now, there was just so much information that you couldn’t respond? Really? Kind of makes the case that you don’t have a foundation.

Please, try to speak about the issues at hand, and do not get side tracked.

Why are you even bringing up Mountain Meadows?

I mean, I can address it if you want. But I’m not interested in hashing out every single little gripe you’ve got against Mormonism in this thread.

You’re falling into an age-old anti-Mormonism debate tactic.

Bring up one objection, and then when that argument doesn’t go so well, change the subject to another objection, and another if necessary. Keep doing this until the Mormon hits a question he can’t answer – then push at that answer incessantly, and then declare victory for yourself while ignoring all the other answers he gave you.

Your last foray into Mormon issues was like this. You punched out so many articles, bringing up so many different issues that there was really no way anyone with a day job was going to have time to answer them all.

So,,,

Are we going to set some parameters on this discussion? Or are you going to change the subject again?

Yes, that verse does speak of overseers, but you still have yet to answer the many other verses. No, the bible speaks clearly – two shall become one. One. Not one here and one there. You are adding to Scripture. Further, concerning the ‘examples’ remember, the Patriarchs were not perfect. THey lied, cheated, stole, and murdered. Do you also follow those examples? Oh, yes, I forgot Mountain Meadows.

Yes. A man can become one with a wife. And then another wife. And then another wife.

And everything’s peachy as far as Jesus is concerned.

As for why Utah doesn’t allow it – probably because we obey the law. You guys almost annihilated our church over this issue if you don’t remember.

Further, you didn’t answer the other question.

Tell me, if it is so biblical, then why doesn’t Utah allow it?

BTW, you have to get around Paul’s commandments concerning marriage.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_not_Biblical

What conversation? You haven’t started yet. All you are doing is what happened last time – which is still up for the world to see.

How about this – answer the plurality of wives.

http://www.google.com/alerts

Try using a basic Google Search before spouting off.

Obviously, you are already trying to shut down any conversation before it’s started. Just like you did last time.

All you are doing is playing a ‘I know you are, but what I am game.’ Please attempt a reasonable dialogue when you return.

And don’t flatter yourself. I’m here because I have a set of Google Alerts for certain keywords like “LDS”, “Joseph Smith”, and “Mormonism.” Every time a blog or news article uses those terms, it shows up in my email inbox in digest format. I haven’t been following your blogging at all other than that.

You have no answers for Mormonism – It thought I proved that?

I never asked for the blessing of the return of the angry Mormon, Seth, but stay around – maybe you will learn something. Considering that I rarely post on Mormonism, I find it so amazing that you suddenly just popped in, especially have I switched sites. I figure that you have been reading all along, waiting for me to post something else.

I do not have ‘gripes’ with Mormonism, Seth – just pointing out the obvious false doctrine and erroneous facts which it is built upon. I would say, I posted about twice a day on Mormonism, for that week.

Why reinvent the wheel, Seth. I mean, Mormonism hasn’t come up with anything new – might as well as post the same tried and true methods of answering them.

Are we going to dance back and forth or are you going to actually try to give good reasons for Mormonism?

Besides, I stuck with your site about a month longer than most people would have said I should have. Few people have time to deal with a huge laundry list of gripes and address each one by one.

How many cut-and-paste attack articles did you post during that brief period again?

First, real tongues does not include a demonstration – unlike what the Mormons practiced. No one here would ask Peter that, Seth. We know that you cannot demonstrate tongues.

Actually, I included that detail in there for you Mormons. Figured it would bring a discussion.

Tell me, Seth, how is my ‘brand of Christianity’ ’severely screwed up?’

What point system?

People aren’t performing monkeys you know.

I imagine if you asked St. Peter himself to demonstrate the gift of tongues for you, he’d probably punch your smirking face.

And of course Joseph “never had an original idea.” That’s the whole point of the Mormon narrative. Surprised you missed that detail.

As for why the LDS doesn’t generally practice the gift of tongues…

Beats me. Perhaps they are in a state of apostasy themselves.

But that doesn’t mean your particular brand of Christianity isn’t still severely screwed up Polycarp. So I think you’re kidding yourself if you think you’re scoring any points here.

And I am glad that you are no longer going to Dr. Kwan’s.