What’s In A Name?

mormon_matchThis is kind of a dual subject post, so bear with me. We sometimes place a lot of importance on names. For example, the Mormon Church places a lot of importance on the name of the Church: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

But more recently, with the advent of the internet, “handles” or short screen names have almost become essential with people using sites like Twitter, where short, brief micro messages are the new vogue. According to wiki,

In some countries, Mormon and some phrases including the term are registered trademarks owned by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. (a holding company for the LDS Church’s intellectual property). In the United States, the LDS Church has applied for a trademark on “Mormon” as applied to religious services; however, the United States Patent and Trademark Office rejected the application, stating that the term “Mormon” was too generic, and is popularly understood as referring to a particular kind of church, similar to “Presbyterian” or “Methodist”, rather than a service mark. The application was abandoned as of August 22, 2007. In all, the Intellectual Reserve, Inc. owns more than 60 trademarks related to the term Mormon. [For more info on the Mormon service mark issue see “Mormon” History.]

But it appears that the Church hasn’t abandoned its desire to control the word “Mormon” in the United States after all, for recently they have sought to have a Mormon Dating site shut down for calling itself “Mormon Match.” According to the Daily News,

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is crying foul at Mormon Match’s decision to use [an image of] the Salt Lake Temple and the word “Mormon” on their site, claiming the church has total ownership over those things.

Reportedly, the use of the word Mormon “is the central issue of this case.” The Church’s Intellectual Reserve, Inc. “questioned [Mormon Match’s] right to use the word Mormon anywhere” on the site. To protect the Mormon name, the Church has engaged in what the Daily News calls “backhanded” and “clandestine” tactics. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Stay tuned.

The second part of this post has to do with an issue closer to home, (here at Mormon Coffee).  Recently, we had to ban one of our more prolific Mormon participants here, who went by the handle, faithoffathers (FOF). This was done because FOF had become so trollish that he was not adding anything of value to the discussions he participated in. For examples of his derogatory rhetoric, please read my comments here.

sock puppetWhen someone is banned from Mormon Coffee (see the Mormon Coffee comment policy), Sharon puts them on a list that she keeps for quick reference. This gives us some behind-the-scenes information that allows us to identify the IP Addresses of those who contribute here. Why is this relevant? Because some who get banned simply make up another profile so they can continue to post and disrupt discussions. One might say they engage in backhanded and clandestine tactics.

When Sharon added FOF’s name to that list, she noticed something interesting. FOF had numerous Sockpuppets that he had been posting with, at least one of which had been previously banned.

This wasn’t noticed by Sharon earlier, because let’s face it, who has time to do that kind of thing unless it becomes an issue; and there have been so few people banned (under 10 over the entire life of Mormon Coffee) that it wasn’t really any kind of a priority. Finding FOF’s Sockpuppets led us to analyze the profiles of some of the others that had been banned in the past.

For those who post here regularly, this might come as a surprise, but FOF can be linked to 8 different Sockpuppets, among them David Brown, DJ Brown, D Brown, Brown, Brownie, Observer, Jim Olsen, and Olsen Jim.

Another prolific troll here was HankSaint, who  had 6 different Sockpuppets, including Hank, Henry, Janet, Solid LDS, and Helen Louis Smith.

We also found that Fred Park joined the Mormon Coffee community as fproy222 and, after he was banned from further commenting, returned as Parkman.

As there were only a handful of such deceivers in the over 2000 User Profiles registered here at Mormon Coffee, this is not a common behavior, it seems, and many of those that were banned were Sockpuppets of those mentioned above.

David J. Brown (FOF) claimed to be a surgeon and a faithful Mormon whose goal, he said, was to defend the Church. But he also claimed that he was a “lurker” named Jim Olsen and deceived us with several Sockpuppet profiles.

HankSaint, who is really Richard Johnson as revealed by himself here (after I called him out about it), also claimed to be defending the Church, but used deceptive Sockpuppets to do so, claiming to be someone that he was not, even his own wife.

One method that Sockpuppets use is to refer to their alternate identities in conversations. I found a few examples of comments made by David Brown, for example, did this. Here is one of his FOF comments from 2008:

Michael P,

I must disagree with you. I have outlined several lines of evidence supporting the Book of Mormon on this site. There have been no responses to the specific evidences. DJBrown also listed quite a long list of prophecies in the Book of Mormon that have been fulfilled. I am happy to once again list these evidences, but my guess is the response will be no different- change the subject or fall back on a more general and global dismissal of the church.

Notice how FOF drops the name of DJBrown, who of course is himself. Here is David Brown as “Observer” also referencing himself in another conversation,

I ran across a post from DJBrown a while back that I thought explained this topic well…

And then we have the Sockpuppet Jim Olsen (David Brown) telling Aaron Shafovaloff that he was,

Just a lurker for a long time. But the degree to which you take pleasure in the misfortunes of others is stunning. Lightning strikes a church or temple- and you find enormous meaning in that? You even seem to revel in it. Seems so contrary to what the Bible teaches.

Of course, he wasn’t “just a lurker for a long time,” he was Doctor David J. Brown, who had already been posting under various Sockpuppet identities to try and bolster his own arguments — which itself seems contrary to what the Bible teaches.

There are many more examples, but those should suffice to show the Sockpuppet’s pattern of deception here at Mormon Coffee. Richard Johnson, or HankSaint/Janet – after I had outed him on another forum – actually told someone there,

You can call me HankPriest, Janet, Richard, HankSaint, Jared, etc. It does not bother me since those were the handles I often used.

The fact that he had to deceive people in order to use some of those “handles” didn’t seem to bother him at all, claiming censorship as his reason for doing so. Like many others, he seems oblivious to the behavior that got him (and his Sockpuppets) banned.

The “backhanded and clandestine” behavior employed by both the Mormon Church (as alleged in the Mormon Match conflict), and its overzealous members in their attempts to protect and defend the Mormon name, seems to fall into the category of the-end-justifies-the-means. While claiming allegiance to the Mormon creed that says “We believe in being honest, true…virtuous, and good to all men,” (Articles of Faith 1:13), they find themselves stooping to conduct antithetical to these very principles.

Do you consider someone who would use this kind of tactic to be honest? Is this kind of deception acceptable as an Ambassador of Jesus Christ? (2 Corinthians 5:11-21)

Is this behavior part of the Mormon pattern of “lying for the Lord,” wherein anything goes as long as you are defending the Church?

Would you trust someone who uses deception to reveal what they claim is the truth to you about God and their Church?

What’s in a name? What do you think?

This entry was posted in Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism, LDS Church, Mormon Culture and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

95 Responses to What’s In A Name?

  1. Rick B says:

    Over the years, me and falcon have noticed these people using fraud and sent in private emails saying we think this person is really this person. I’m really happy to see this article, these liars need to be exposed. Its so true, how can we trust you to claim you have the truth if you need to lie to get it out? Jesus said your of your father the devil, you speak his language and he was a liar from the beginning. So it seems these mormons who lie are children of the devil according to Jesus. And they are simply following in the footsteps of there founder Joseph Smith.

  2. falcon says:

    Excellent Article!

    Oh man is this the truth or what. “It’s the return of…………..” only under another name. Don’t these LDS folks know that they have a writing style that can be spotted a mile away. If I thought about it a little I could name some of these posers. Let’s try “Mary Jane”. Anyone remember old “Mary Jane”. I believe that was the infamous “Olsen Jim” who is really………………you guessed it.

    I don’t know if these guys think they are being clever or what but it takes a certain type of mentality, maybe even boarder line pathology to engage in this type of behavior. They must be getting some sort of thrill out of doing it; sort of like a window peeper or a type of voyeurism.
    Who has the time to do this? Think about it. There has to be the planning phase, the execution phase and then the elaborate cover up phase. How much does this intrude on the perps thought processes during a typical day?
    Bottom line? Who does this sort of thing? It’s a person with either way too much time on their hands or something missing from their lives.
    I think you rightly point out grindeal, that there’s a small number of these folks floating through cyber space. I find the deceptive nature of what they are doing says a lot about their character and the core of the arrogant TBM.

  3. Rick B says:

    I really want to know what Ralph and Clyde think of this. They claim lds dont do this type of stuff, we claim they do and then people like Ralph and clyde claim were making things up. But these types exist sad as it is.

  4. falcon says:

    The other part of this is that these guys keep getting “outed” for their behavior on sites like MC. What is that behavior that causes them to be banned into blog outer darkness? We call it “troll” behavior. What exactly is an internet “troll”?
    “In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response …”
    And more:
    Trolls are immune to criticism and logical arguments.
    True trolls cannot be reasoned with, regardless of how sound your logical argument is.
    Trolls do not feel remorse like you and me.
    They have sociopathic tendencies, and accordingly, they delight in other people having hurt feelings.
    Trolls consider themselves separate from the social order.
    Trolls do not abide by etiquette or the rules of common courtesy.
    Trolls consider themselves above social responsibility.
    Trolls gain energy by you insulting them.
    Trolls gain energy when you get angry.

    *** The only way to deal with a troll is to ignore him, or take away his ability to post online.

    I find the last part of the final piece of advice the best which is to give them the boot. I suppose even this is sort of like the troll being able to redeem his stamp book for his favorite feeling state. Maybe it could be a feeling of glee and satisfaction. Maybe it could be a feeling of persecution.
    I’m thinking that collecting the persecution badge when redeeming the stamp book could be the pay-off.
    As an aside. Can you imagine how much tension FOF is feeling reading this article and realizing that he’ll have to come up with a new identity to try and respond.
    We know he’s still out there lurking.

  5. Ralph says:

    RickB said – “I really want to know what Ralph and Clyde think of this. They claim lds dont do this type of stuff, we claim they do and then people like Ralph and clyde claim were making things up. But these types exist sad as it is.”

    Really? When have I said anything like this? I know that one LDS member was found a few years ago to have come back under a different name after being banned – I think it was Hanksaint. It saddens me to see things like this but that is their problem not mine. I am not naive to believe that the LDS are perfect, I just need to look at myself to know that.

    But I do remember you using your wife’s name (Shelli) once a few years ago. You did sign your name on the bottom of the post to indicate it was your post, so it wasn’t a sockpuppet, but it was your seventh post for the day when posts were restricted to six per person per day. I even pointed it out the next day when I was online but nothing was done or said about it. Shelli did make a few other posts around that time but her writing style is different to yours so I do know it was her comments not yours at those times, but it was just that once you used her account.

  6. cattyjane says:

    Haha! Well just to set some things straight I lost my password to this blog after not posting for a long time and thought I was going to have to create a new nic. I created the name katey, however I never used it because I found my password. The thing is if I did use it I would have said in my first post hey this is catty, now katey. I know all about tracking ip addresses and how it doesnt work to create false ids just from experiences ive had on chat sites. I would not have been able to lie like FOF did. I have too much of a conscience to do that.

  7. Rick B says:

    Ralph, I signed it as you said, I was not claiming to be someone I was not. And yes as you pointed out shelli my wife did also post here a few times. It would be different if I claimed I was her and was not. That would be lying, I might have posted one extra time, but at least I was honest about who I was.

  8. falcon says:

    Come on, you know better. What rick did doesn’t relate to the article at all. Are you going all LDS on us here?

    The number of active Mormons who come on this site and comment, I would guess is relatively low (in comparison to the total number of active Mormons). The total number of active Evangelical Christians who come on this site and post is miniscule compared to the total. How many are there of us who post regularly? Maybe a half-dozen? I would guess that the total number of people who come here and read but don’t post is quite large compared to the posters.
    My point is that FOF and his ilk are even a small number if we’re just looking at the subset of TBMs.
    So when it comes to Mormons like FOF, even though their numbers are extremely small, they can give a very bad impression that stays with people. They can do a lot of damage to the LDS cause.
    So I guess we should encourage them, promote them and give them a prized spot on the blog!
    Should I start a “Bring back FOF” movement?

  9. Mike R says:

    Mormons like Fof F feel threatened and that’s why they feel they have to stop ministries like
    MRM . More and more people are learning the full story about Mormonism , but ” the rest of
    the story ” that the Mormon Missionaries are reluctant to admit is provided by Christian
    ministries so that must be hindered and Mormons like him attempt to do this . Many of these
    type Mormons are knowledgeable and are articulate but sooner or later they resort to the
    same type of behavior they accuse non Mormons or ex Mormons of , namely , using personal
    attacks , dishonesty , and double standards . I guess we should expect this given how
    Mormon leaders have convinced their flock that non Mormons are part of the church of the
    Devil for these days , and who are standing against the ” kingdom of God ” — the Mormon
    church .
    Because we love the Mormon people we will continue to reach them with the news they deserve
    to hear . Our hearts break for those who have been detoured by latter days false prophets into
    accepting a imitation gospel .
    I tip my hat to those who run MRM for their labor of love to the Mormon people , and also
    equipping christians how to reach Mormons for the Lord Jesus Christ .

  10. MJP says:

    I just urge Christian posters to ensure we are not doing the same thing in other venues. It does show a lack of character. I hate to paint a broad brush against all Mormons, but for one who so adamantly claimed he was well versed and representative of Mormonism, this lessons credibility. I really hope Christians don’t put themselves in the same discussion.

    I actually think I might be the Michael P listed in the article. I did have to create a new name because I could not remember the old or the password or something like that. I started law school in 2008 and the following three years are a void in many ways, including not remembering when or how this change was made. I do remember having to do so, though.

  11. grindael says:


    That just happened to be a comment directed at you (if that was your old profile – I can easily find out), it was used to show what some of those that create multiple profiles dishonestly do with them. I am not saying that it is wrong to have them, it is what is done with them that is important. Some people want to keep their anonymity, because of personal reasons, which is totally understandable. Your old profile was not banned, forcing you to create a new one so that you could get around being banned. That is what is done by trolls. Some come here, portray us as dishonest, when they are being totally dishonest representing themselves. And it is important to note that it was only a handful of people in all the thousands that have created profiles here. That speaks to the majority of Mormons being honest and wanting to follow the rules. Intent is everything, and usually this kind of thing doesn’t get discovered until well after the fact, which is what happened in the cases I mention in the OP.

    I recently had a comment directed at me on another (older) post, about how we were so “mean” and “ganged up” on FOF. This article, is a response (in part) to accusations such as these. I think that people should really read the rules of posting here before they throw out such accusations. One says,

    Rule #5: Trolls are not welcome in our coffee house. Anyone deemed to be a troll will permanently lose commenting privileges. In other words, no jerks allowed. And we decide what jerks are.

    As with most blogs, each of the owners decides who is a troll. Many though, claim that this is unfair, after being called out for bad behavior, but if they had read the rules they would have seen that it is not unfair for us to decide who is a troll, or “jerk”. But some get obsessed, and can’t seem to accept the fact that they are not wanted here, because of their bad behavior. The multiple accounts and sock puppets are simply a by product of that obsession.

    Again, this is not the norm, but the fringe, for both Mormons and Christians. We value everyone’s privacy here at Mormon Coffee, but if you come here to deceive, disrupt and troll, we will take appropriate action, (which includes keeping un-revealed identities and emails and locations private if they are not revealed by the user). For those that think they can get away with multiple profiles, know that we know what your IP address is, and can locate you that way. We would never reveal this to anyone, but we know, and that helps us to know who is trying to game the system.

    For all of those mentioned above, they themselves actually revealed their identities online in comments. I just put the pieces together for everyone.

  12. fifth monarchy man says:

    I find myself in an awkward position, I really don’t want to be picking on FOF since he has no way of defending himself here but there is something that needs to be said for the benefit of lurkers.

    so here goes

    A recurring theme of his posts here was his problem with the Christian doctrine of salvation by Grace alone through faith alone. He implied that such a position leads to easy-believeism and does not result in moral behavior.

    But here he have an example of an individual apparently being deceptive while at the same time arguing his very salvation is in part dependent on his own good works



    Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
    (Mat 7:20)

    end quote:


  13. fifth monarchy man says:

    I don’t want to imply that I am some how a better person than FOF,

    I’m not, far from it I am the chief of sinners and I fail big time everyday. that is why I love Grace so much. It’s that very grace, Knowing that Jesus paid for my ENTIRE salvation with his blood that drives me to try and live righteously out of sheer overwhelming gratitude.

    Thank you Jesus


  14. falcon says:

    So really there in lies the crux of the problem with these internet trolls of the TBM variety.

    Let’s ask ourselves if the point of the TBM troll is to disrupt a conversation and chase the Christians down never ending rabbit holes of confusion? I’d say yes to that. If the conversation can be diverted to some nonsensical topic and keep the Christian busy and away from the real topic, it’s a win for the TBM troll. This tactic can also cause confusion for the LDS lurker who wants to learn more as they are questioning Mormonism.
    In some ways, Mormon Missionaries are door-to-door trolls with better manners. These young people aren’t train to give direct answers to controversial questions a prospect might have. What they are taught is a form of verbal judo to deal with questions that might reveal what Mormonism is all about.
    Bottom line is that LDS Mormons are basically dishonest when discussing their faith.
    Your example of works and grace has often been discussed here. Do you think that the MM is going to give the details on what Mormon works and grace really are?
    The point of Mormon interaction and presentation is to hide and diffuse. They want LDS style Mormonism to appear just like Christianity.
    It’s all a ploy and called “lying for the Lord”.

  15. falcon says:

    Sorry Fifth.
    In my haste and pre-coffee stupor, I gave you a new name, FMF. Kind of funny when you think about our topic of discussion here, isn’t it?

    I think, however, you got the point of my post. That is that what we’re dealing with here is basic dishonesty. I don’t know how TBM trolls justify it in their own minds but I think it’s just part of the “lying for the Lord” LDS ploy. Lying and dishonesty are at the core of Mormonism. Joseph Smith was the biggest whopper teller in the world and yet people would believe him. Lying has obviously worked quite well and is apart of the Mormon mind-set.

    Consider this from an article in MormonThink:

    “My belief was that those who accused church leaders with deception were deceivers themselves. But as I read more church history my list leaders’ prevarications grew, and at some point it occurred to me that Joseph Smith established a pattern of institutionalized deception.”

    “Evidence presented in this list establishes that when the church or its leaders needed protection, it was, and is, okay to fib, deceive, distort, inflate, minimize, exaggerate, prevaricate or lie. You will read quotations by church leaders who admitted that deception is a useful tool to protect the church and its leaders “when they are in a tight spot,” or “to beat the devil at his own game.” They admit engaging in moral gymnastics; that God approves of deception – if it’s done to protect the “Lord’s Church” or “the brethren.”

    “D. Michael Quinn called the use of deception by LDS church leaders, “theocratic ethics.” (The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, page 112) Dan Vogel in his excellent work, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, described Smith as a pious deceiver. Smith used deception if in his mind; it resulted in a good outcome. Smith believed he knew when God approved of lying. For example, Smith wrote that God commanded the prophet Abraham to lie to protect himself and his wife Sarah from harm (Abraham 2:23-25).”

    “Deception came naturally to Smith. Before assuming his role as prophet, he operated confidence schemes. He guaranteed clients that he could see underground treasure using a magic stone in the bottom of his hat. Gullible “clients” paid him to locate treasures using this vision-in-the-hat method. (He never found anything.) Smith’s arrest, trial and conviction in Bainbridge, NY for fraud in 1826 documented his activity. He was found guilty of glass looking. The modern term for Smith would be a con artist. (Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, 82-86).”


  16. falcon says:

    So LDS internet trolling goes back to the dawn of the birth of Mormonism; the non-technological form. How about a Mormon Lying Hall of Fame or Shame if you prefer?

    Here’s a basic fundamental lie that Mormonism is built on:

    “The official version of the First Vision by Joseph Smith, fashioned in 1838, nearly 20 years after the event, was unknown to church members until published in 1842. It evolved after years of creative editing. It describes a more spectacular and miraculous event than earlier versions of the same event. The 1832 account is the original handwritten version and lacks the spectacular claims. The early version does not mention God the Father as one who appeared to Smith, or the religious excitement that motivated Smith to pray, persecution by unbelievers, being attacked by the devil, being told not to join any apostate Christian Churches by Jesus; and he was not called to restore a church and serve as its prophet in the earliest version. The 1832 “vision” resembles a common Christian epiphany where he imagined Jesus forgiving his sins. Church leaders suppressed the contradictory and less impressive version for over a century. (James B. Allen, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, pages 29-45. See also Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History, pp.24-25; and The Changing World of Mormonism, pp. 148-166)”

    There’s a more extensive list that establishes the pattern of institutional lying within the Mormon church on the link below.


  17. MJP says:

    Grindael– not worried about it at all. I do think that was my username, and can actually try to log in with it if it is still up. If so, I’ll let you know to cancel it.

    I don’t want to put too much on FoF’s actions, either. We all do things we shouldn’t, and every little thing we do that we shouldn’t separates us from Christ. That’s the beauty of Jesus– he still, continuously saves us. We can’t work our way out of our need for him, because we will inevitably fall. Its true for me, that’s for sure.

    My opinion of doing that is that it destroys the credibility of the person who does so. When they make the claim they are the better, more moral person and intentionally deceive, credibility is maimed.

    We’ve had discussions about grey areas under Christ, and this becomes the prime reason to not do things we think we might be able to do: credibility. Who would take seriously someone with little credibility? More precisely, who would believe a faith claim from someone who is not following the spirit of the faith? Even more specifically, who would believe a blatant sinner?

    Is lying for the Lord a sin? I think it is. Is protecting your leadership a sin? Depends on how leadership is defended– lying for them is still lying. Lying about doctrine is still lying, even if the meat is before the milk. Lying about who you are is still a lie.

    I appreciate the desire for LDS to keep a clean image. But even the small things add up to take away credibility.

    Again, we are not perfect either, but we don’t blatantly mislead, I don’t think. That’s what’s at issue here, and if FoF is reading this, I hope he considers the effect of his deception and how it relates to him being a sinner and his need for a real savior.

  18. Kate says:

    In response to the first part of the post, it’s crazy to me that the LDS think they are the only “Mormons”. The other day at my parents house, dad and I were talking about the a Cliven Bundy situation with the Federal Government and dad was bringing up what happened at Ruby Ridge years ago. He couldn’t remember the name Ruby Ridge and he said ” You know, that polygamist Mormon cult”. My mom had a fit claiming they aren’t Mormons! After she was done I calmly said, ” They are a product of Mormonism too.” She ignored me. How strange! The polygamist groups here in Utah can trace their ancestry right back to the early church and are even descendants of the pioneers! They share the first several prophets of the LDS. How do the LDS even begin to claim the FLDS aren’t Mormon? Kudos to the United States Patent and Trademark Office for rejecting the LDS church’s application. They are far from being the only Mormons.

  19. falcon says:

    I don’t think that Randy Weaver and his family at Ruby Ridge were Mormons. In fact I’m pretty sure they were involved in some off-beat Christian church.
    Not to get too much into it, after it was all said and done, Randy Weaver was found innocent of the original charge they brought against him. His remaining family got a boat load of money from the Federal Government.

    I don’t know how accurate all of this but I think the religious aspect is very telling.

    “Similar to Randy, Vicki had also been raised with conflicting religious teachings. Her mother was a Congregationalist and her father a Mormon. Throughout her childhood, her father would often attempt to foretell current events as he compared the Bible’s prophecies with the newspaper.”

    There’s extensive information on this site. You may find it interesting.


  20. Kate says:

    Thanks for the correction on the Ruby Ridge thing. I wasn’t familiar with it at all and I’m not sure why my dad thinks they were a polygamist mormon cult.

  21. grindael says:


    There is a common element between Ruby Ridge and Cliven Bundy (who is a Mormon) and that is not recognizing the Federal Government, and their RACIAL BIGOTRY. (Weaver was part of the White Supremacist Movement). Look up “The Church of Jesus Christ, Christian). Weaver’s wife Vicki had ties to Mormonism, her father was a Mormon.

    It all centers around people believing that there is in reality, no Federal Government. This all goes back to ” Posse Comitatus”, a law passed with the intent to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the state laws in the South to defend the blacks. If you listen to Bundy, he keeps harping about how only the “local sheriff” has any kind of jurisdiction. What I find hilarious is that the guy parades around with a United States flag but claims that the Federal Government doesn’t exist. According to wiki,

    During the local, state, and federal elections of 1874 and 1876 in the former Confederate states, all levels of government chose not to exercise their police powers to maintain law and order. Many acts of violence, and a suppression of the vote of some political and racial groups, resulted in the election of state legislators and U.S. congressmen who halted and reversed political reform in the American South.

    The Posse Comitatus law was a compromise to get Rutherford Hayes into office, because of disputed votes made in the Southern States. There are exceptions, of course, to this law, notably using National Guard troops under the direction of the Governor of any State, as happened in the South during the Civil Rights disputes, and Los Angeles in 1992. On September 26, 2006, President Bush urged Congress to consider revising federal laws so that U.S. armed forces could restore public order and enforce laws in the aftermath of a natural disaster, terrorist attack or incident, or other conditions. These changes were included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122), which was signed into law on October 17, 2006. Barack Obama repealed this in 2008, reverting the Insurrection Act back to it’s original form and purpose, which limits the use of Presidential Power far more than what Bush enacted with the National Defense Authorization Act.

    A similar case to Bundy’s was the Whiskey Rebellion, ( a tax protest in the United States beginning in 1791, during the presidency of George Washington), which led up to the Insurrection Act of 1807, which allowed the President of the United States to deploy troops within the United States to put down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion. Accordingly, actions taken under the Insurrection Act, as an “Act of Congress”, have always been exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act. This is where people like Bundy, who defy Federal Troops go horribly wrong. These men usually hold up Washington as some kind of an idol, but they don’t understand history. (Read about the Whiskey Rebellion here.

    That is why Federal Troops could legally go into Utah in 1857, no matter what Brigham Young and the Mormons said about it. These men (those who wish to claim Constitutional Privilege) don’t understand the laws, nor the rights of the Federal Government. Weaver (Ruby Ridge) was found guilty of two charges, (one a judge set aside) and the other was the original “failure to appear”, and he served 18 months in prison. The Feds only settled with him to avoid a long drawn out civil trial that would have made them look worse than they already did for killing his wife. (Which was declared unjustified).

  22. falcon says:


    Here’s an interesting fun fact from the link I posted. Notice that the “minister” from the Mormon side was from the RLDS what has now become the Community of Christ. So the Mormon sect was not the LDS or the FLDS. I know you guys know the difference. The CoC, for those who don’t know, Aaron calls “Methodists with extra scripture”. They reflect very early Mormonism. They’ve evolved so far now, I guess it’s called “continuous revelation”, that the BoM is sort of a footnote. So they’ve had a break away group also.
    Vicki Weaver was really the head honcho in the Weaver family. She had a “vision” when they were in Iowa that showed her two more children and a mountain top. So they had two more children and Ruby Ridge was on a beautiful mountain top confirming, in her mind, the vision. Well I’ll let you guys judge about the legitimacy of the “vision” but it led her to a bullet in her brain.
    Quite honestly, there’s a lot of blame to go around for what turned into a total fiasco at Rudy Ridge. I’d encourage you to read the short chapters from the link I’ll provide.
    All of the themes we discuss here could be applied to the Weaver family. For an even better description of what happens in aberrant sects with Mormon ties read “Under the Banner of Heaven”. There’s nothing like false prophets!

    “On October 8, 1971, following three years of duty, Randy Weaver received an honorable discharge from the Army and moved back home. One month later, in November of 1971, Randy and Vicki were wed during a small ceremony at the First Congregationalist Church in Fort Dodge, Iowa. In an attempt to please Vicki’s family, two ministers conducted the ceremony, one from the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints and the other a Congregationalist pastor.”


  23. falcon says:

    There’s a verse in the Bible or I picked it up some where else that says, “What you fear will come upon you.” I probably picked-it-up in some self-help book, one of the hundreds I think I read during my formative young to middle age adult stage. Another one is that we draw to ourselves those things we constantly think about and speak out loud. That’s a little “name it claim it” religious mumbo jumbo.

    When we think about the Weavers, what they feared, thought about and said out loud they did draw to themselves. On-the-other-side, the Weavers were a shiny object that the Federal government couldn’t keep their eyes off of. Just think, all of this started when an ATF snitch coaxed Randy Weaver into selling him two shotguns for $300. This snitch had been turned because he had broken the law and was given a deal. What the Feds were hoping to do was to flip Weaver also, so he’d become an informant on the White Supremacists of which he wasn’t a member but sympathies.

    So Ruby Ridge and the Branch Dividians in Waco have become confirmation to fringe groups that the Federal Gov. is what they (groups) believe they are.

    Now think of this. It all has strong religious under tones. The Weavers basically invented their own hybrid form of religion. David Koresh had it all going on including sexual relations with multiple women including the wife of one of his leaders. It all sounds too familiar doesn’t it?

    I would say, and this is my opinion of course, that the TBMs who come here and post under various names and try to disrupt the proceedings are some where on the Weaver/Koresh continuum. Where we could place them, I don’t know. But I do know that what they do is at least pre-fanatic behavior and that it wouldn’t take much to push these types over the line. Mormonism has been full of them as their history attests to.

  24. Kate says:

    I was thinking last night about why the LDS get so upset when someone calls the FLDS Mormons. I put myself back a few years ago and what I thought and it’s the whole persecution thing. The FLDS are looked down upon for the very thing Joseph Smith did himself . The LDS feel persecuted if they are even linked to polygamy at all. How many LDS today even know about Joseph Smith practicing polygamy? What about his polyandry? Don’t ask about those things or you are just persecuting the LDS. Somehow it has become persecution to ask questions or want answers about LDS teachings and doctrines. I have more respect for the FLDS who proclaim the teachings of their prophets loud and proud. They held fast to the revelations of all their prophets and are still living those today. They haven’t thrown any of their prophets under the bus for the embarrassing stuff, they are at least honest in teaching true Joseph Smith Mormonism. If I decided to follow Joseph Smith I would become FLDS , they have his religion right. The LDS church is a modge podge of beliefs, practices and teachings that are far removed from Joseph Smith.
    I wonder what JS would think of the LDS church if he could come back today? Would he embrace it because of it’s wealth and power or would he humble himself and take up with the FLDS who practice what he preached?

  25. falcon says:

    There’s a certain “creep” factor when you think about people who try to get on to a blog by using various names. The tactic of signing in under different names to give written support to yourself is way too narcissistic. I like to think that these are troubled people who would be strange or odd even without the Mormonism. Mormonism just provides a back-drop for their peculiar behavior.

    Joseph Smith would go for the money of the LDS but practice Mormonism like an FLDS. It’s who he was. By the time he died, he was way out of control, on a continuous binge. His death was the best thing that could have happened to the movement if you think about it. I don’t think he could have held the whole thing together. I doubt if he were as good a “manager”, “despot” and “cult leader” as Brigham Young.
    The LDS church is just running on fumes in the sense that they don’t have a dynamic leader that will attract people to the sect. The money is the thing. As long as the LDS church members can keep having kids and indoctrinate them into forking over 10% of their incomes as club dues, they can keep the corporation going. If young people aren’t into it, the deal’s over. I don’t think the LDS church can bring in enough people to stay even with the number leaving the fold.

  26. falcon says:

    I often wonder why Mormons, other than those who are looking for information about Mormonism, would show-up here and post?
    Interestingly to me, is that most of our Christian posters are former Mormons. So in many respects what we have are those who have gotten delivered from the false religious sect of Mormonism and those who are up to their eyeballs in it.
    The TBMs that we get here just can’t understand 1) why everyone isn’t Mormon and 2) how anyone could possibly leave. All of our former Mormon now Christian posters used to be true believers in the religion of Joseph Smith. I can’t imagine what it must have been like to begin to discover things that ran contrary to what they believed, had been taught and provided the essence of what their life was.
    There must be a certain amount of fear of the unknown for the Mormon questioner. It takes some courage to step out and begin to retool your thinking.

  27. falcon says:

    I remembered a few years back, I asked a TBM poster if he would kill or steal if ordered to by the “prophet”. He said, yes, he would kill or steal if ordered to do so by the “prophet”.
    Needless to say I was shocked because first of all I didn’t expect that answer and second of all I hadn’t picked up any sense of extremism or way outside the box fanaticism on the part of the LDS poster. That’s really scary stuff. I’d call it far-out cult thinking and a form of indoctrination that I’ve not encountered.
    I don’t know. Ask a representative sample of active LDS members and how many would answer “yes” to that question? It might be an interesting exercise to do such a survey if a legitimate population could be identified within the LDS sect.
    So changing a name on a blog and testifying on part of yourself while being right up to the line of odd behavior, it’s “only” deceit. Committing violent actions on the part of the LDS sect is a whole different thing.

  28. Kate says:

    It is scary that some LDS would kill if their prophet told them to. I can hear the rationalizing already. I mean after all, doesn’t our government tell our mlilitary men and women to kill? LDS prophets in the past ordered people killed and it was done. Think danites, the avenging angel and blood atonement. It’s really scary to think that one man has the power to control so many others to the point of murder. It reminds me of Charles Manson.

  29. falcon says:

    The main problem is that these “followers” out source their will and judgement to those they are convinced have something that they themselves lack. In the case of the modern LDS sect it’s the “system” that these folks have surrendered to. The followers are convinced that those who manage the system are special and anointed. In reality these guys don’t have to be all that dynamic, insightful or charismatic. The people think they are.

  30. Clyde6070 says:

    On the subject of the guy who would kill for the prophet, did you ever think that the guy was trying to throw you for a loop? He might have been jesting with you. We can’t tell through some ones writing if someones joking or not.
    On the subject of the Blog FOF was very interesting because he seemed to stay on subject and generated lots of discussion. I know that nobody is perfect and little things can bother people. Rick posting under his wifes’ name and grindaels’ long and dull at times blogs can be seen as just as bad as what FOF did. Life must go on because if all three were gone we would have to read just yours and Mike R. comments. It makes me wonder if Mike R. and Wyoming willie are one and the same?

  31. johnnyboy says:


    Cant tell if you are joking or not, but like grindael posted, many of the people on this blog know each other and can vouch for the fact that we are who we say we are. I personally know at least one commenter in real life and we are good friends. I also know rick and grindael through private emails and Facebook correspondence and they can vouch for who I am and that the background I have claimed of myself is also true.

    Considering that we all know FOF’s name (and the fact that he’s the only surgeon who happens to be in Idaho with that name) it’s safe to say we all know his identity. As for FOF staying on topic.. that’s the biggest knee slapper of all time. One of the main reasons he was banned was because of his NOT staying on topic and steering it purposefully in other directions.

    Grindaels posts may be long, but far from boring. His detailed rebuttals cite historical facts which are highly valued for showing the inconsistency in Mormon leadership and “doctrine”. Only someone not interested in factual information would find them “dull”. His posts helped me and many other lurkers to discover the truth behind the lies of the LDS church.


    Your answer to Kate is 100% accurate. I revered the “15” and always held them in high regard. After meeting some of them in person, that reverence lessened a bit. After I discovered the truth, it all but vanished. I hold them in contempt now. When I saw the BBC Holland interview, I realized that was the REAL Holland speaking. “I’m no dummy!”. I was shocked at the arrogance displayed.

  32. grindael says:


    Your speculations are amusing. Instead of productive conversation, you try and point the bad behavior shown in the OP at others. Typical of those that want to defend that kind of behavior. So I guess we all know where you stand – with dishonesty. Such a “little thing”, eh Clyde?

    Rick didn’t HIDE the fact that he posted under his wife’s name, nor did Mike, and as I explained in the OP, there is nothing wrong with people having multiple profiles, (for a variety of reasons – like forgetting passwords, etc.) or an anonymous “handle”, it is only when they use them dishonestly or to troll that creates the dilemma and breaks the rules, which is what FOF was doing, since he was banned from the site years ago and had to invent sockpuppets to get around those rules. Which seem to mean nothing to those obsessed with presenting their own versions of what Mormon History and Doctrine is while denouncing the real thing and everyone who presents the truth as [insert epithet].

    Only TBM’s complain about my “long” comments. (And what that has to do with the OP is anyone’s guess). TBM’s object mainly because they don’t want to bother reading the truth. And I’ve heard countless times, that one is being “dishonest”, “snipping”, etc. if you don’t quote the entire context, and that is probably what you would be doing if I didn’t present mountains of evidence to back up what the truth is. It is simply a diversionary game, one that is tired and old. And where is the rebuttal to those mountains of evidence? Certainly not forthcoming from you. Complaining seems the best you can do.

    That doesn’t speak well for Mormonism.

  33. Mike R says:

    Clyde, do you realize how consistent you are at posting something that is not even worthy of a
    reply ? I do thank God that you are here because you are now accountable to Him for what
    you have learned about the false prophet organization that you have joined . That’s a sobering
    thought . May you walk away from the imitation apostles of Mormonism .
    Remember : It’s about Jesus , not Joseph . One day I hope you come to really understand what
    that means .
    Praying for you .

    P.S. the answer to your question about me , I publically stated on 7-30-2010 , in the thread :
    ” LDS Priesthood Blessings influenced by Mortal Imperfections ”
    That lasted for a while and then I changed back to “Mike R ” .
    End of story .

  34. Clyde6070 says:

    johnnyboy I said seemed to stay on subject. His steering it purposefully in other directions to me was to make people see it differently.

    Mike R. It is painfully obvious that you were Wyoming willy.

  35. falcon says:

    Because you’re in the “naive true believer” category, I give you a lot of leeway. It sounds to me that you needed to blow-off some steam and just unloaded in your post. It’s probably been building up in you for a long time. The LDS religious system is something that you have given everything in your life to and here we are, taking it apart, shedding it with the truth everyday.

    But, I must ask, have you ever posted anything on this blog that even made a scintilla of sense?

    I post a lot? Yup this is the ministry that God has called me to. If you are unhappy with that it tells me that I’m effective in what I do. You’re going to have to ask God if He might give me a different calling.
    As far as the LDS poster who said he would kill or steal for the prophet? He’s had plenty of time to correct his comment and has never done so. He could have merely said, “Falcon, I was pulling your leg. I was just being sarcastic and having a little fun with you.” I wish he had done that.
    clyde, as Kate has pointed out, killing and stealing were done with the knowledge of the LDS prophet. Even though BY was able to hide from it, there’s something called the Mountain Meadows Massacre. There’s also the trashing of William Law’s printing press. And BTW, who shot Governor Boggs in Ill. and who sent him to do it?

  36. MJP says:

    Grindael– I tried logging in under Michael P– don’t remember the password, and the email address that went with it I think is disabled (or the password changed such that I don’t remember even that). I can tell you in 2008, we moved from the Washington, DC area to Wyoming.

    No worries, though, as MJP is working just fine and I don’t need 12 posts a day.

  37. Rick B says:

    Again, as far as me posting under my wifes name, I was open and honest about that, so why does it bother you? Then over the years that I have been on here, their have been issues with, I guess you could call it, software or tech. The blog kept being changed for what ever reason. And I kept losing my name and password through no fault of my own. I am pretty sure that happend to others as well.

    So I was going by Rick, or rick b, or even the Hammer, since Falcon was kind enough to knick name me that. But no matter what name I went by, I was always honest enough to tell people it was me.

    anyone honestly think I have anything to hide when I openly post my email address and invite people to write me? Now why dont you address issues instead of making up issues.

  38. MJP says:

    Clyde, those are some pretty weak arguments. By that token, we can all throw everything we read on the internet out because we don’t know the author’s tone.

    Rick has been honest, and did not deceive. You can disagree with his tactic, but at least he was honest about it, unlike Dr. Brown.

    Mr. Brown on topic? No, I don’t remember it that way. Having said that, there have been several discussions on precisely what the topic was. As you may know, we don’t see the issues as the same. Grace v. works is a great example, as is salvation, the true identity of Christ, who was Adam, ban on blacks in the priesthood, etc. While you may find something on topic, it may in reality be far, far, from it.

  39. Clyde6070 says:

    Let me get this straight. MJP was once Michael P. Mike R. was once Wyoming willie. Rick b. was Rick the hammer and shelli his wife. Grindael is a blog Hog. I would ban all of you. Now I am writing this as if I am the moderator. A harsh moderator at that but I am not the moderator. The moderator has done a good job and has been liberal enough to allow a lot of discussions from a a lot of interesting people.
    Are any of you perfect? Let me answer that. NO none of you are and neither am I. God does not allow any degree of sin but we must forgive and forget. Which is very hard to do. Corrie Ten Boom once met the man who was a guard at the camp she was at.
    She had a hard time getting herself to shake his hand. But when she did-well maybe you should read the story.
    A suggestion for you. Have you ever written a book? i am not saying this to be facetious. It would be a very interesting if you could take the stuff you have researched and put them into some kind of story. If done properly you could be rich. Have you ever read Thomas B. Costain’s book The Last of The Plantagenets. His books are actually Faction. He takes facts and weaves an interesting story around them. Remember it just a suggestion.

  40. MJP says:

    Do you really, Clyde, fail to see the difference between the actions of Dr. Brown and those who admit they’ve used other names? Not only did the former quote himself and prop himself up, but he never once admitted he used another name.

    As for myself– I took a few years off from posting here, and forgive me for forgetting my log in information. I also in that time changed email addresses. Yet, you are going to compare this with Dr. Brown’s intentional and contemporaneous use of multiple names?

    Are any of us perfect? Of course not, but we admit our mistakes. Dr. Brown made no attempt to do so, likely because he did not see it as a mistake.

  41. grindael says:


    I have two unpublished manuscripts, one a fantasy, (like Game of Thrones) called “Shadow of the Dragon”, and a Historical Treatment on Adam God titled “Yahovah, Michael”. The first, is almost ready for publication. (I’ve had offers). They liked it, but wanted me to expand the story. The Second, is not finished yet. I’m currently writing an article about Solomon Chamberlin, and H. Michael Marquardt is helping me with the research. I plan to submit that to the JWHA. In 2012 I was the first to break the story about the photo of the “Caractors” Document that I found buried in the Clay County Museum’s Collection of Jacob Hicks glass negatives. I have no desire to be rich. I’m already well off and retired. I write for personal satisfaction.

    As for fictionalization, I recently saw “Messenger of Death“, starring Charles Bronson. It was based on a novel called “The Avenging Angel” by Rex Burns. (It is about two warring Fundamentalist families).

    You claim that we must forgive and forget, and that is great advice. But it is also incumbent upon us sometimes to explain why certain things happen. After FOF was banned, I got questioned as to why we were picking on him. Thinking that this might be a prevalent thought among many lurkers, I took it upon myself to explain what happened. It seems that you are upset by that. Why? The OP is totally factual. Anyone can look up what I posted (except what users give us in private, like IP’s & Emails). It’s hard to shake hands with sockpuppets. Maybe you should think about that.

    You are the one who seems to be projecting malice in this. There was none, only clarification, and questions. Funny that only people like you and a handful of banned users, have complained about my being a “blog hog”, or that my comments are too lengthy. I am simply thorough when it comes to documenting Mormon History and Doctrine, for good reasons, which seem lost on you. Again, I don’t see you offering up anything relevant. It’s easy to criticize, but much harder to explain yourself. I won’t hold my breath where you are concerned. I am currently having a conversation on a private page with a Mormon author about polygamy. This is what he said to me today,

    “I really appreciate your response because you are quoting primary documents. It is rather discouraging when people on the internet (here or elsewhere) put themselves up as experts on some topic because they had read a bunch of secondary sources, rather than quoting the evidences themselves. Thanks!”

    It may not matter to you that I quote extensively, but it is important to those that write and publish Mormon History, the Historians (be they Mormons or Critics). Your comments in this area are simply trivial and don’t concern me at all. I respect, and have the respect of people that know and publish about Mormonism (even though our conclusions may be far apart). This is something that many Mormons who post on the internet can’t fathom, because they can’t see past their own bias and think that all who disagree with them are dishonest. (A common complaint of FOF).

    You would ban everyone! Now that is the ultimate blog hog. Funny that out of over 2000 users here, we have only banned about a dozen. You know that I’m one of the moderators here, don’t you Clyde? You know what a moderator does, don’t you Clyde?

  42. falcon says:

    I had a Mormon go off on me here one time because often times I’m the first to post when a new article appears. Now that’s a head scratchier. I figured the guy had to really reach to come up with that as a criticism of me. I considered it a compliment if that was the best the guy could do.
    We rarely get a competent LDS poster here. Most of the time they either do a drive-by post or write from an emotional mind-set where in short time they paint themselves into a corner. Then they sort of bear their testimony and leave.
    Fact of the matter is that they just don’t have any solid information with which to debate effectively. That’s why FOF had to write under another name to support his own posts (under another name).

  43. Clyde6070 says:

    I think several things get to me about your blogs. They’re like reading Poe. They slow down the flow of the blog and I lose interest when I read them. Some of them really pique my interest. Like the one about the meeting in cincinnati with Elijah Abel. I am talking about my own preferences here. ( I once tried reading Thomas Hardy. My cousin was very cruel in recommending that I do but that was years ago. )

    When you say bias to me we are all bias. WE seldom are able to live in other peoples shoes. We all have our own point of view. It is my impression from the regular blogger It would be better if no mormon showed up to give there ideas.

    Your last paragraph I read two ways. The funny way Banning everyone would leave us reading blogs from falcon. (boy that would be dull) Well that wouldn’t too bad cause falcon is a pretty wily fellow. The threatening way ‘You know what a moderator does, don’t you clyde?’ Yes I do grindael they eat puppy dogs. No, they seem to ban people who try show a different point of view.

  44. Mike R says:


    Keep up the great work you and the other moderators do . Also, your posts here are much
    appreciated .

  45. grindael says:


    As Poe himself once said, “Convinced myself, I seek not to convince.” You’re trying too hard dude. And if you really want to enjoy some Edgar Allen Poe, pick up the Alan Parson’s album, “Tales of Mystery and Imagination.” It puts a whole new spin on the Master of the Macabre. Listening to Orson Wells recite “A Dream Within A Dream” on that album is simply divine.

    You might be “all bias”, but I am not. I actually learned a few things from having lived through the 60’s until now. We might all have our own point of view, but the facts are the facts and I’m not burdened by cognitive dissonance when it comes to seeing them for what they are.

    Good thing that your impressions are your own. What a dreary world you must live in.

    Only those with little or no empathy can’t or won’t find a way to live in other people’s shoes. Projecting that upon others only shows your own inadequacies. Everybody hurts.

    Perhaps if you had looked at my last quote in the context of what you wrote in your own comment, you would have understood what I meant by it. You weren’t even close.

    I don’t think that you “lose interest” in my posts, rather, it is obvious from your comments that you have no interest in the truth. Sad, really, but some people only want to tear down things they feel threatened by.

    As Bob Dylan once said, ““Don’t criticize what you can’t understand.”

    But by all means keep lurking around. My next article is going to be quite the eye-opener. That sometimes happens when things get out of the Mormon Church’s restricted access files. For some though, I’m sure there will only be more sour grapes.

  46. johnnyboy says:

    I’m still trying to figure out how Clyde is comparing anyone’s actions on this blog to those of FoF’s. Everyone who used a different name explained who they were. No one was being deceitful EXCEPT FoF!

    I almost had to change my name from when I posted years ago because I forgot what it was and what my password was. It took me a while to find my old posts from 2008 and then remember what the password was. I’m still embarrassed at my old posts from then and I easily could have created a new profile and just “start over”. I realized I didn’t want to do that because I wanted people to know who I was and see how I had changed and had come to my senses!

  47. johnnyboy says:


    What’s funny is Clyde grilling you about your writing when all it took was a few google searches to find your blog, your art, your contributions to other forums, and your historical work.

    Keep it up!

    One of your “cheerleaders” 😉

  48. falcon says:

    Well I guess we’ve provided clyde an opportunity to have a well needed emotional cleansing. It must really grind on our poor naive TBM to have so many well informed and effective writers take a part his LDS fantasy world. The problem with the LDS church is that it keeps folks like clyde in a perpetual child like stage of development. Anyone who puts their faith and trust in a man and his magic rock has some growing up to do.

  49. falcon says:

    I just watched a video called “Calvinism in three minutes”. I don’t know the movie it’s from but the actor is George C. Scott. I’m going to post it but the taste police may want to pull it because the young women drops the “f bomb” at the end of it. None-the-less she makes an interesting point when Scott says you have to be on the “inside” to understand Calvinist doctrine. She says, “Everything works if you’re on the ‘inside’!” She’s right of course because that’s why there’s such a wide gap between TBMs and those of us who’ve never been Mormons.
    Now thankfully, most of our posters are former Mormons so they know how it looks and feels to believe in the Joseph Smith fantasy tale and the LDS religion.
    Here’s the link. I think we’re all big people and have heard the “f” word before so don’t let that be a deterrent to a pretty insightful piece.


  50. Ralph says:

    To all,

    I have been busy with night shift so I couldn’t do any searching until very recently about some comments made by Grindael and Falcon last blog ago about “Should the Cross be an Afterthought”. I have put in an answer there if anyone is interested.

    I pointed out RickB as he did use another account to break the rules and nothing was said at the time about it by the moderators even after I pointed it out, unless they did it in private communication. I was not saying that he was doing the same as the LDS mentioned in the article.

    By the way RickB, you made a personal allegation against me and I asked you to prove it. If you can’t, can you at least acknowledge that you were wrong and clear my name please.

    I have no problems with people needing to change identities because of forgetting log-in or password details, I used another name (RalphNWatts I believe it was) for a while when the system changed to another one other than WordPress as it wouldn’t accept my WordPress name. Things like that happen, but to use different names to reference oneself or to get around blog rules or banning I do take issue.


    I am the one Falcon was referring to when he said an LDS member on this site said they would do what the prophet would tell them to do. I laid it out specifically to him but he just gives the sensationalist view. I said if the prophet came to me personally, not over the phone or email or video conference or anything like that, but personally, I would do what ever he tells me is God’s will, including killing someone, just like the prophets in the OT commanded the same, and if the people they commended didn’t follow them in that command God punished them. Look at Moses, Samuel and Elijah to name a few. I have my testimony that the prophet today, ie Pres. Monson, is God’s prophet on this earth today so I don’t need to ask God any further for verification. I am not, as some would say, following blindly, as I thought about and prayed about him before the sustaining vote and got my answer. I did not consider him the prophet without that answer first.

Leave a Reply