Mormon Elizabeth Smart and Her Mormon Rapist Are Hypocrites

Post link: http://elizabethsmart.tk

Message to the Mormon Church and their infighting members Elizabeth Smart and the Mormon who repeatedly raped her, Brian David Mitchell (yes, he’s a Mormon, something which Fox News and other mass media outlets hide, Fox News no doubt because many of their viewers are Mormons and because Mitt Romney owns 1100 radio stations and Clear Channel): Stop being hypocrites. Elizabeth: Why did you make hateful remarks to your brother Brian Mitchell? Brian Mitchell: Why did you repeatedly rape your sister? Elizabeth: if you are relying on the worldly court system of the United States, which includes Methodists and Presbyterians, shouldn’t you also speak out against the Mountain Meadows Massacre in which Mormons pretended to be Native Americans, lied to the caravan with millions of dollars of goods with it by pretending they wouldn’t attack them if they surrendered, and when they did, massacred them with their children, kidnapping some of the children and stealing their property and not having returned it? Oh, but you did return the family members how many decades later? And when will you give up ownership of the land on which the massacre was made, and stop insulting the dead with the pile of rocks you laid over them as if they were cursed, rather than a cross (to show that they followed Christ and not Joseph Smith and your flesh gods), denominations which your cult slanders every day as abominations of Satan? Can you stop being a self centered hypocrite Elizabeth Smart, spreading a gospel of hate, a gospel in which the Holy Spirit leaves whoever sins and in which no one gets eternal life, and must trust in themselves to have peace? Why don’t you speak out against Joseph Smith for having seduced a married woman into marrying him and for having threatened in the name of the Lord a father to get his teen daughter to marry him? Why don’t you tell those you lie to that Joseph Smith’s own wife left to join another Mormon cult? Aren’t you against adultery, Elizabeth? Why was it okay for your founder Joseph Smith (not Christ) to repeatedly see a prostitute in secret, but it’s not okay for two Mormon women to go into the house of a “single” man? Why is it okay for them to go into the house of a single woman? Is your church sexist? Does it approve of homosexual seduction? You’re worse that your Mormon brother who KIDNAPPED you and REPEATEDLY RAPED YOU under the CONFIRMATIONS he received (CONFIRMATIONS which Mormons ARBITRARILY approve of, because that is what they use to determine the truth, THEIR FEELINGS), because you are free to preach the truth, but have used it instead to continue to be self-centered, vengeful, violent and to spread lies that lead to more lies, kidnapping and murder.

False Teacher – Chuck Missler’s False Gospel Given On Coast to Coast AM

Chuck Missler last night was on Coast to Coast AM. He appeared to be a loving saved Christian, but then I noticed at one point where he was using Coast to Coast to preach, gave a typical Arminian gospel (which is a misleading one that leads people to Hell and makes them “twice a child of Hell as … you” to quote Jesus), which is “accept that Jesus died on a the cross for you” MINUS ASKING GOD TO FORGIVE YOU. As usual, Christian-hater and fundamentalist-hater George Noory, who hates to listen to Christian preaching, and who knows that most of his audience does too (and is successful because he twists, avoids, and marginalizes it, like Chuck Missler does), stopped his Christian guest short (Chuck) when Chuck was preach his version of the gospel. It is possible that Chuck was going to say after saying that you must accept the lord’s death, that you must also ask him for forgiveness, BUT Chuck had two hours to make that point and was not shy to take advantage of the show, and it’s a crucial part of the gospel, yet Chuck did not mention it. This is how Arminians are. Why? It’s because being that they believe that they have goodness in them, they have pride, pride that they can have eternal peace apart from God’s goodness produced by this goodness in them, so then, they believe that they don’t truly need God’s forgiveness for eternal peace or perfect peace, and they also believe in their own goodness so much, they can’t accept that God would hate anyone. They also no doubt to me believe that they don’t need God’s forgiveness, because, “God doesn’t hate anyone.” No doubt to me they also believe that God wouldn’t hate anyone, because he already took his anger out on Jesus (which if they believe, is truly twisted: because they are saying that God hated his own perfect Son, but not those who refuse to ask God to forgive them for disobeying him/being imperfect) or on the sins that Jesus suffered for (which would be nonsensical, because sins don’t feel pain, they are actions, not living, or “objects of wrath.”) They are also evil in that they can’t accept that God would even hate a person if they weren’t good. So for all those reasons, is why they stop short at “Jesus shed his blood on a cross for your sins” and some perhaps, won’t even mention that Jesus suffered, or will avoid it, because it’s “distasteful” to them or they can’t believe that God would deliberately make anyone suffer, or that Jesus needed to. Or, they may believe that Jesus volunteered to suffer, and therefore was punishing himself, not God, but because they don’t think the suffering was important, but rather the blood-shedding on a cross and for many, baptism (which many Arminians obsess on as being necessary for eternal peace). They also believe that they have a completely free will, which can’t be influenced (which is an insane belief since it goes against common sense). They believe this because they hate God and want to be his equal, which is why they call themselves “sovereign”, and so they also believe that God can’t destine anyone, avoid talking about the parts of the Bible that mention destiny, or miscontrue it as “election” (that God elects whom he will save because he saw in the future that they would do good), and hypocritically, though they acknowledge that God is sovereign, refuse to accept that God has the same “rights” they they believe he gave to them, that he can hate whom he wants to, and decide what the future of his life will be (which includes how the lives of others will be).

These teachings of theirs are contradictory, because they admit that they have disobeyed God, admit that it’s so bad in God’s eyes, admit that they must repent, and that sin angers God so much, that he punished his only begotten son, a perfect son, Jesus, who was also God, severely, and so severely that figuratively, God says that, “he became sin.” But despite that, Arminians repeatedly fail to say that we must ask God to forgive us. This explanation I have given, makes it clear that Arminians are prideful and self-righteous (and again, they admit that they are good apart from God, or can be).

And because of they refuse to acknowledge that they are evil, that they need God’s goodness done in them to be good, and Christ’s good life up to his sacrifice as an appeasement to God for our lack of a good life and none sacrifice and inability to sacrifice ourselves without it being never-ending, they refuse to accept what is logical and reject common sense, and so are prone to all kinds of other errors, and life all those who are unsaved, often make hypocritical compromises, which leads to them further contradicting their main beliefs.

Chuck also believes that all the saved Christians will be raptured into Heaven so that they don’t have to go through the tribulation, taking this verse out of context:

“in a moment, in a glance of an eye, at the last trumpet. For a trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall all be changed.”

The context is made clear by Paul:

1Co 15:35 But someone will say, How are the dead raised up, and with what body do they come?
1Co 15:36 Foolish one! What you sow is not made alive unless it dies.
1Co 15:37 And what you sow, you do not sow the body that is going to be, but a bare grain (perhaps of wheat or of some of the rest).
1Co 15:38 And God gives it a body as it has pleased Him, and to each of the seeds its own body.
1Co 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh; but one kind of flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another of fish, and another of birds.
1Co 15:40 There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. But the glory of the heavenly is truly different, and that of the earthly different;
1Co 15:41 one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.
1Co 15:42 So also the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption;
1Co 15:43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;
1Co 15:44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
1Co 15:45 And so it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul,” the last Adam was a life-giving Spirit.
1Co 15:46 But not the spiritual first, but the natural; afterward the spiritual.
1Co 15:47 The first man was out of earth, earthy; the second Man was the Lord from Heaven.
1Co 15:48 Such the earthy man, such also the earthy ones. And such the heavenly Man, such also the heavenly ones.
1Co 15:49 And according as we bore the image of the earthy man, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.
1Co 15:50 And I say this, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption.
1Co 15:51 Behold, I speak a mystery to you; we shall not all fall asleep, but we shall all be changed;
1Co 15:52 in a moment, in a glance of an eye, at the last trumpet. For a trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall all be changed.

If you can’t tell what the context is: it’s the second resurrection. The first resurrection happens when Christ returns, destroys the anti-Christ, false prophet, beast, and hundreds of millions or billions of evil people, and reigns for a thousand years. That happens AFTER the tribulation, or completes it. Here is the reference in the Bible to this first resurrection: “Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. The second death has no authority over these, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him a thousand years.” – Revelation 20:6.

Chuck was also being a hypocrite when George Noory told him that he was concerned that Harold Camping’s false prophecies (or predictions or interpretations of the Bible about when the end of the world would be) would lead some to suicide, and Chuck said he was concerned that it would lead some to disbelieve the Bible and that atheists would use it to blaspheme God. Yet Chuck is doing little different by also giving a false timing for the rapture. What will all those Christians who go through the tribulation think, and how will they feel, without that stable goodness of God in them, when the anti-Christ bludgeons them and persecutes them, and Jesus doesn’t come to take them out of their worry or doesn’t affirm that their complacency is a good thing? Will the majority of them think, “Oh no, the Calvinists were right” or “The Baptists and Presbyterians were right?” No: they will “fall away” and “betray one another” and some or many will rationalize taking on the mark of the Beast because they can’t believe that God will have left them behind, and that as many of them believe I’m sure, the mark is really “a computer chip that is implanted into you”, and some will probably realize they were wrong, and out of greater hatred for God for not giving them there way, will take the mark in an attempt to harm God through such provocation. Some will probably disbelieve the Bible and commit suicide, seeing how bad the world gets or because of the severe persecution, and not having God in them to help to “not fear those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul.” (Matthew 10:28)

The Arminian’s Confusion Over The Will and Man’s Sovereignty

Many Christians and pseudo-Christians, like Mormons, are Arminians, or have Arminian-like beliefs. The Mormons no doubt have them because their founder, the narcissist sociopath Joseph Smith, knew of a major split between various Christians, that which was between those who believed in predestiny and those who believed that man was in control of his future and Joseph also believed that the U.S. Constitution, was divinely inspired, though it was really a creation of deists, perhaps influenced by what they learned from some Indian/Native American tradition or laws. The U.S. Constitution that mankind had “inalienable rights”. Inalienable means “Incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another” and repudiated in part, means, “reject as untrue”. And “right” in that context, means, “An abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition, nature or God.” And the Deists believed that mankind had the right to liberty and to pursue a life of happiness. The Bible does teach that you have the option to attempt to have liberty, which means, “freedom from servitude, confinement or oppression” and to try to be happy, and that it is natural to be happy over certain things, but it doesn’t teach that liberty and happiness itself are something you will have in life, though it seems that most people get to experience being happy at least one time in their life, the exception being maybe babies that are born severely deformed or incomplete, or people who are always in severe physical pain. A confused person, like a narcissist might think that liberty and happiness was guaranteed to him by God and also a person who resents God’s authority and control over them, and so it shouldn’t be a surprise such people would obsess over their “rights”, and even turn them into major religious teachings like Arminus (the founder of Arminiasm) and Joseph Smith did. Joseph Smith’s cult has their own fancy phrase for the will, calling it “free agency” in an attempt to make themselves sound wise and to distinguish themselves from other cults and the Christians (and which is a term that leads to further confusion). Joseph Smith even made his own attempted replacement or out-doing of the Bible, called “The Book of Mormon”, and stupidly included the words “rights” and “liberty”, repeatedly, and ended up sounding like a poor imitator of various speeches made by the “founding fathers”. The Book of Mormon ended up being littered with punctuation and grammar errors and major plagiarism from the Bible that he attempted to out-do. Joseph Smith also tried copying it’s literary style, and failed often due to his ignorance of Old English grammar. He even copied the italics in the King James Bible into the Book of Mormon, making it even more obvious that he wasn’t divinely inspired, but a forgetful and lazy idiot, and whose fatigue (caused by his making his long rambling work while sinning and desiring to sin), hindered him. And so again was fulfilled these verses: “Let God be true and every man a liar.” (Romans 3:4) and “For the wisdom of this world is nonsense in God’s sight. For it is written, ‘He catches the wise with their own trickery’.”

As I’ve taught before, there is no conflict between “free will” and God destining everything he made. The confusion is over what “will” means and what it is, something which opinionators and God-haters keep misdefining. A will doesn’t mean “a thing which is free and makes choices freely without influence”, which is where the illogical term “free will” comes from. And if the will is free, then “free will” is a redundant phrase. But the will is a part of the human mind that makes choices, but choices which are influenced, and choices which aren’t always able to be fulfilled, and choices which God does not have to respect or love, if they are against what he says is good. And God can influence people perfectly, and doesn’t need to do so directly in all instances, for him to cause to happen what he wants to. He can get what he wants indirectly, in various ways. He designed the universe and gave it the direction he wanted, knowing what would happen, and what would happen when he permitted things and commanded things and directly intervened. So, he has pre-destined everything, and there is no getting around that. No scheme will change that, and no teaching will make it less true; God is sovereign, and his will never fails, and we are under his influence, in this universe, which belongs to him, not us.

Update: 5/20/2011, 11:20

George Noory has yet another Christian on named Dr. Joye Jeffries Pugh, who is also teaching the rapture is a non-judgment day event, who at 8:44 AM I just learned was most likely saved (I’ve been talking to her). She taught that the rapture happens after the tribulation as far as I can remember from the show, but I’m not sure. I’m trying to find out now.

Additional Information:

The Last Days Explained

The Great Gravity Probe B Hoax: More Evolutionist (Anti-Christian) Fraud

Sadly, evolutionists have further wrecked science, spreading more lies in the astronomy field, spreading more confusion and causing more scientific and technological stagnation and religious/spiritual confusion as a result. They have done so this time by making false claims about the Gravity Probe B satellite experiment, which in 2008 NASA had made clear was a failed experiment. But now, in March 2011, it’s suddenly a success. Look at how much propaganda was spread by the experimenters:

78 news articles claiming that the GPBSE was a success, and many blogs, including Michio Kaku’s.

Even Wikipedia is spreading the hoax which is evident from the title of the Gravity Probe B experiment picture they placed on the Gravity Probe B page. It says, “Gravity_Probe_B_Confirms_the_Existence_of_Gravitomagnetism.jpg” (the same picture I used for this post). I wonder if that was the original title or if some weasel retitled it.

At this Google knol link here, physics researcher Michael Suede points out why the claim of success and vindication is false, among other reasons for Relativity being false. He claims that the GPB error data was used to produce a positive result, which the geocentrist Malcom Bowden predicted would happen.

If you hate reading or would rather watch videos of evidence against General Relativity, here are some videos on Youtube:

Einstein Was Wrong – Falsifying Observational Evidence Presented

Quasars: Why Einstein Was Wrong

Related Videos and Articles:

Geoncentrism Evidence:

Hidden scientific evidence for geocentrism

Evidence of Geocentrism 1 of 3

Evidence of Geocentrism 2 of 3

Evidence of Geocentrism 3 of 3

Geocentricism – The Orrery

The geocentric Venus-Mars-cycle – animation

Earth, Venus, Sun: Geocentric Orrery

Geocentric Model with Sun and Venus

Geocentric model of the solar system, demonstrating the celestial sphere and epicycles

Morning Meteors Explain Geocentrism

Geocentricity – Satellites + Mach

GEOCENTRISM – Sagnac’s experiment – an animated explanation

Geocentricity explains the seasons

The Static Earth – The Geostationary Model works!

Geocentric Universe – Celestial Poles

GEOCENTRICITY – An animated explanation of “Airy’s Failure”

Galileo – Quadricentennial Myth vs fact

A written rebuttal against the arguments of Los Almos’ Nieto’s arguments against geocentrism

Big Bang Contradictions:

Technical Paper on Plasma Cosmology and Big Bang

The Big Bang Theory–A Scientific Critique

Fast stars challenge big bang origin for dwarf galaxies

Why we’ve got the cosmological constant all wrong (note the comments too)

New Discovery: Dwarf Galaxies May Nix Theory of Dark Matter in the Universe

Faster Than Light? Neutrino Finding Puzzles Scientists

Faster than a Speeding Light Wave

The First Test That Proves General Theory of Relativity Wrong

Was the Speed of Light Faster In the Early Universe?

Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation

Speed of Light May Have Varied in the Early Universe

Copernicus and his Revolutions

The Decrease In the Speed of Light – An Update On Developments

Reports of the Death of Speed of Light Decay are Premature

On the Constancy of the Speed of Light

Starlight and Time

Hi-Tech Eye Design in a Lowly Mollusk

by Brian Thomas, M.S.
5/6/2011

Human eyes are well-designed to see objects using light transmitted through air, but not through water, because light travels at a different speed through the two media. However, intertidal-dwelling marine mollusks called chitons can see equally well in both environments. How did they acquire this unusual ability?

Chitons scour intertidal rocks for algae meals. Eight integrated shell-plates cover their backs, and a muscular foot allows them to cling with surprising strength to the rocks they traverse. A recent study explored their unique dual-mode eye design. How do they see in both air and water without switching out eye lenses, and is this an “adaptation,” as suggested in a summary in ScienceNOW?1

Researchers publishing in Current Biology tested chiton eye lenses and discovered they were the first ever known to be made of the hard mineral aragonite.2 Chiton shells are also made primarily of aragonite, but the use of this material in an eye lens turns out to be an elegant solution to the problem of forming quality images in either air or water.

“The mineral bends the incoming rays in two directions and creates a double image,” according to ScienceNOW.1 The researchers suspect that the chiton capitalizes on the two angles, or “refractive indices,” of transmitted light to form an image in either environment. The study authors wrote, “We propose that one of the two refractive indices of the birefringent chiton lens places a focused image on the retina in air, whereas the other does so in water.”2 The use of aragonite for a lens material could potentially be copied by optical engineers for many applications.

“The adaptation makes sense, as chitons live in intertidal zones and spend time above and below the water line,” ScienceNOW reported.1 But who is to say that the chiton eye was the result of random “adaptation” and not intentional design?

Chiton eye specifications include the thickness, size, and placement of aragonite lenses on the chiton’s shell—coordinated with internal light-detecting soft tissues like membranes and specified proteins. All these are needed just to detect a raw light signal. Therefore, these eyes have such incredibly ingenious engineering that the burden of proof lies with the one who insists that chiton eye specifications are natural “adaptations” rather than intelligently specified designs. – More here

Religion Is Natural According to International Study

Religious belief is human nature, huge new study claims
By Richard Allen Greene, CNN
5/12/2011/12:46 P.M. ET

London (CNN) – Religion comes naturally, even instinctively, to human beings, a massive new study of cultures all around the world suggests.

“We tend to see purpose in the world,” Oxford University professor Roger Trigg said Thursday. “We see agency. We think that something is there even if you can’t see it. … All this tends to build up to a religious way of thinking.”

Trigg is co-director of the three-year Oxford-based project, which incorporated more than 40 different studies by dozens of researchers looking at countries from China to Poland and the United States to Micronesia.

Studies around the world came up with similar findings, including widespread belief in some kind of afterlife and an instinctive tendency to suggest that natural phenomena happen for a purpose.

“Children in particular found it very easy to think in religious ways,” such as believing in God’s omniscience, said Trigg. But adults also jumped first for explanations that implied an unseen agent at work in the world, the study found. …

(1,488 comments)

More on this article here

It’s natural to believe in God: Oxford study
Press Trust Of India
5/12/2011/03:06 P.M. IST

London: Human beings have natural tendencies to believe in God and life after death, according to a three-year international research project directed by two academics at the University of Oxford.

The 1.9 million pounds project involved 57 researchers who conducted over 40 separate studies in 20 countries representing a diverse range of cultures. The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in God and an afterlife, and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind, a university release said.

The researchers point out that the project was not setting out to prove the existence of God or otherwise, but sought to find out whether concepts such as Gods and an afterlife appear to be entirely taught or basic expressions of human nature.

‘The Cognition, Religion and Theology Project’ led by Dr Justin Barrett, from the Centre for Anthropology and Mind at Oxford University, drew on research from a range of disciplines, including anthropology, psychology, philosophy, and theology. – More here

Strange that these study findings on human instincts just came out being that I was studying a certain aspect of human instincts yesterday, to prove Mormons wrong moreso about a certain something they claim.

Silencing The Mormons Once and For All

Post link: http://mormons.tk

Mormon Missionaries Finally Confirm My Suspicions
With Their Arbitrary Excuses

While letting some Mormon missionaries attempt to convert me again (not that they could succeed, being that they are liars), at about 9 PM yesterday, I finally decided to put forth some hard questions for them concerning themselves and the  Book of Mormon and their teaching about salvation, that I knew would refute them and which they wouldn’t be able to answer without condemning themselves.

There were two missionaries, both female, one new to me the other familiar. I first asked them if they knew any literature besides the Book of Mormon and some verses from the Bible, and they didn’t answer. They didn’t even say, “Doctrines and Covenants” which is other Mormon literature, though garbage literature. But perhaps they knew I meant besides Mormon literature. This matters, because it shows that they were ignorant about the world, had little knowledge, and were hypocrites for asking me during our meeting, to be “open minded” to their nonsense. They also ask this of anyone who doesn’t believe them, because Mormons can’t accept that they are wrong about what they claim that the founder of their cult taught, because the feeling they get that tells them so, can’t possibly be wrong, for no logical reason, which is something they also want everyone to believe.

After, I asked them a question concerning what I thought was the wrong usage of the word “esteem” in the Book of Mormon, but which soon after they let I found out that I misunderstood, and which they better understood then me. However, I was only sure because I bothered to look up the word, while they just wanted me to take them at their word. I even brought a verse in the Bible in which it was used, and they gave no examples at all from the Bible. The rest of my questions stumped them and they repeatedly contradicted themselves as I show in this post.

They tried to tell me that there were no mistakes in the Book of Mormon, but when I brought up that it had been revised, one missionary, whom was new to me, twice said, “No man can explain that.” And yet soon after or a little while before that, had told me that God could make anyone understand the gospel (apparently referring to the Book of Mormon), even a baby (which is obvious and pointless to tell me), and by that contradicted herself again when I brought up the grammar errors again, and she claimed that the grammar rules might not have been same 200 years ago, which is an old Mormon counterargument, and deceptive, because the English language clearly did have grammar rules 200 ears ago otherwise 1) It wouldn’t have mattered how Joseph Smith arranged words and there would be no point in copying verses from the King James almost word for word. 2) It’s a simple matter to look up on the Internet what the state of English grammar was and its development (but big surprise, Mormon missionaries are forbidden from thinking: they aren’t allowed to use the Internet except to email their family, how convenient for these Mormons who obsess over “progression”. Clearly their version of progression is no progress at all). Here is a quote from one website on the development of English and not that it gives no justification for the nonsensical and confusing grammar of Joseph Smith:

Early Modern English (1500-1800)
Example of Early Modern English
Hamlet’s famous “To be, or not to be” lines, written in Early Modern English by Shakespeare.

Towards the end of Middle English, a sudden and distinct change in pronunciation (the Great Vowel Shift) started, with vowels being pronounced shorter and shorter. From the 16th century the British had contact with many peoples from around the world. This, and the Renaissance of Classical learning, meant that many new words and phrases entered the language. The invention of printing also meant that there was now a common language in print. Books became cheaper and more people learned to read. Printing also brought standardization to English. Spelling and grammar became fixed, and the dialect of London, where most publishing houses were, became the standard. In 1604 the first English dictionary was published.
Late Modern English (1800-Present)

The main difference between Early Modern English and Late Modern English is vocabulary. Late Modern English has many more words, arising from two principal factors: firstly, the Industrial Revolution and technology created a need for new words; secondly, the British Empire at its height covered one quarter of the earth’s surface, and the English language adopted foreign words from many countries.
Varieties of English

From around 1600, the English colonization of North America resulted in the creation of a distinct American variety of English. Some English pronunciations and words “froze” when they reached America. In some ways, American English is more like the English of Shakespeare than modern British English is. Some expressions that the British call “Americanisms” are in fact original British expressions that were preserved in the colonies while lost for a time in Britain

- Source

Note that one of the presidents of the Mormon church, George Albert Smith, defended ACKNOWLEDGED GRAMMAR ERRORS by saying:

“…[when] the Lord reveals anything to men He reveals it in language that accords with their own.* If any of you were to converse with an angel, and you used strictly grammatical language he would do the same. But if you used two negatives in a sentence the heavenly messenger would use language to correspond with your understanding, and this very objection to the Book of Mormon is an evidence in its favor.” (bolding from me).

The problem in that defense is that 1) hardly everyone was a stupid farm boy or girl, and most American whites were well educated by the time Joseph Smith was born in 1805, and every year getting better educated and so would have noticed the nonsensical grammar.

From Wikipedia:

Webster thought that Americans should learn from American books, so he began writing a three volume compendium, A Grammatical Institute of the English Language. The work consisted of a speller (published in 1783), a grammar (published in 1784), and a reader (published in 1785). His goal was to provide a uniquely American approach to training children. His most important improvement, he claimed, was to rescue “our native tongue” from “the clamour[10] of pedantry” that surrounded English grammar and pronunciation. He complained that the English language had been corrupted by the British aristocracy, which set its own standard for proper spelling and pronunciation. Webster rejected the notion that the study of Greek and Latin must precede the study of English grammar. The appropriate standard for the American language, argued Webster, was “the same republican principles as American civil and ecclesiastical constitutions.” This meant that the people-at-large must control the language; popular sovereignty in government must be accompanied by popular usage in language.

The Speller was arranged so that it could be easily taught to students, and it progressed by age. From his own experiences as a teacher, Webster thought the Speller should be simple and gave an orderly presentation of words and the rules of spelling and pronunciation. He believed students learned most readily when he broke a complex problem into its component parts and had each pupil master one part before moving to the next. Ellis argues that Webster anticipated some of the insights currently associated with Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. Webster said that children pass through distinctive learning phases in which they master increasingly complex or abstract tasks. Therefore, teachers must not try to teach a three-year-old how to read; they could not do it until age five. He organized his speller accordingly, beginning with the alphabet and moving systematically through the different sounds of vowels and consonants, then syllables, then simple words, then more complex words, then sentences.[11]

The speller was originally titled The First Part of the Grammatical Institute of the English Language. Over the course of 385 editions in his lifetime, the title was changed in 1786 to The American Spelling Book, and again in 1829 to The Elementary Spelling Book. Most people called it the “Blue-Backed Speller” because of its blue cover, and for the next one hundred years, Webster’s book taught children how to read, spell, and pronounce words. It was the most popular American book of its time; by 1837 it had sold 15 million copies, and some 60 million by 1890—reaching the majority of young students in the nation’s first century. Its royalty of a half-cent per copy was enough to sustain Webster in his other endeavors. It also helped create the popular contests known as spelling bees.

So this Mormon falsely gave the impression that millions of Americans had bad English, and that the best language for them to learn then was bad English. 2) If as Mormons claim God would only speak to people in a language they could understand rather than teach them (because Mormons claim that that is the logical thing to do) then why bother teaching babies? Using Mormon logic: no one would have language skills to begin with, or at best they would never progress in their language skills. 3) And supposing we somehow did learn language despite the bad Mormon logic, and we all got our own unique languages like we do today, then why hasn’t God made a Bible in each of those languages? But the Mormon flesh god isn’t a modern god, just a backwards sham, hence why these “Latter Day Saints” with their “prophets for modern times” are stuck hundreds of years in the past, and are always struggling with new knowledge. 4) And would God really perpetuate bad English? Would Joseph Smith seriously have not been able to understand correct English? Could God have not helped Joseph Smith to understand correct English? The new Mormon missionary girl herself said that God could make a baby understand the gospel, yet not Joseph Smith when he was a teen? He couldn’t have brought Noah’s Webster’s grammar rules to Joseph’s attention? This Mormon leader also contradicted the other Mormon argument for the King James having been heavily copied into the Book of Mormon, which is that it was because the Old English was still familiar to people of the 1800′s. But wouldn’t that have also included bad grammared Joseph Smith then? So Joseph Smith didn’t understand what he was copying from the King James, or understand it? Not only does the King James use the correct grammar Joseph didn’t have, but it’s 200 years older than Joseph Smith’s version of English! But oh, according to the Mormon leader George, God was just talking to Joseph in the language best known to American’s at that time: poor-boy English. The Mormon flesh god is truly an author of confusion. It’s one contradiction after another with the Mormons, because they don’t have the truth, but reject it. 5) How can you have two different excuses for Joseph’s Smith’s bad grammar?: a) God spoke to Joseph Smith in the same bad grammar so Joseph Smith could understand (because God is against teaching anyone anything new to this idiot Joseph Smith who, according to one of his wives, Emma, couldn’t even pronounce “Sarah” correctly when he had a vision of it) or b) because the English language was still being developed (had no set grammar rules, which is a lie as I’ve shown) or c) because God can’t do anything perfect through man. Or is it d) “God’s logic and grammar is above our own, therefore if you can’t understand the Book of Mormon, that’s why.” A contradicts C and D. If  it was B, as some Mormons might say, then why did God bother speaking in “Joseph Smith’s” farm boy language rather than in another style of grammar: CORRECT GRAMMAR? Why didn’t God steer the development of the English language through THIS “MODERN PROPHET FOR MODERN TIMES,” JOSEPH SMITH, WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO “RESTORE THE CHURCH” BECAUSE ALL OF THEM WERE ABOMINATIONS AND ON THEIR WAY TO THE “ETERNAL FIRE” IN “HELL”? Confused yet? 6) If it was D, why would God not simply write his word himself if he wants us all to understand him? 7) Why would he tell us something we couldn’t understand and use a flawed tool: man, who according to the Mormons, can’t repeat what God says correctly, and therefore brings his word into doubt, and waste our time searching for subjective feelings? Is that not dumb? 8) If God’s logic and grammar are higher than man’s, as this new Mormon missionary girl said to me to convince me that I was wrong, then why should I bother reading the Book of Mormon or listening to any Mormon doctrine since God’s logic is too high for me according to the new Mormon missionary? Of course some careless Mormon might say to me, “But you can understand him, just not everything” and of course “everything” is whatever I see doesn’t make sense: all of the Mormon doctrines, including on salvation, which brings me right back to what I asked: why bother reading what is too high for me? And how can I believe what makes no sense to me? Does it make sense to believe that 2+2=5 or that lies are true? Does it make sense to say, “Stop believing 2+2=4, just give it time and the Holy Spirit will show you through a feeling that it really equals five”? Yet Mormons want you to believe in what is logically impossible. 8) According to the logic of the “the English language was still changing” excuse, there can be no grammar errors or even spelling errors or punctuation errors. So then, why not put all the words of the Book of Mormon in a bag, jumble them up, and throw them all onto a table and read from what you see? Does it matter what arrangement the words are in if grammar rules didn’t matter? Clearly they do matter and language only makes sense if the grammar is correct, and worse the grammar the harder it is to understand. 9) Martin Harris, one of the alleged witnesses of the existence of the translation process that produced the Book of Mormon, made it clear that Joseph Smith could not produce what was an error because their flesh god made it clear if an error was being made and the correct translation would remain till it was copied correctly. 10) Martin Harris’  and Emma’s testimony contradict Mormon George Smith’s. Emma made it clear that Joseph couldn’t understand everything he was seeing, therefore their flesh god wasn’t simply speaking to Joseph only in a way he could understand. 11) English is always in development, and using Mormon logic, it wouldn’t matter then how bad anyone’s grammar was, it would still make sense using the grammar rules of the person with the bad grammar, and so there would be no such thing as bad grammar. I could say, “I could say.” and that would be a correct and logical sentence. Or I could say, “Or.” and that would be right. And Joseph Smith could have done so and still have been right.

Neither missionary gave me an answer as to why the Book of Mormon was missing 116 pages.

Meanwhile, in keeping with shallow minds, the Mormons claim that God must be addressed with “thou”, as if using that single word was more important that making sense when you talk. What is more important: correct grammar, making sense when you talk to God, or saying “thou” instead of “you” to God, and not making sense? Can you answer that Mormons?

Further, the new Mormon missionary pretended it were a matter of mere word arrangement: but she surely knew I was talking about nonsensical grammar, since I brought up logic errors due to the grammar problems, and so she was committing a logic error herself by switching to an unrelated subject, something which lying weasels do. When I asked her what her proof was for her claim that the grammar rules might have been different, she said, “faith”. Which is a nonsensical answer but an admission that she had no proof or evidence, and simply putting out any answer. And can’t I also say “faith” to their accusations? What makes it special when they say, “faith” but not me, who has evidence to back it up? They might as well say, “Our faith is better than yours being we feel so and unless you believe us we’re condemning you as an abomination as our leader Joseph Smith did, based on his feelings too.” That’s the real Mormon gospel.

She also contradicted herself And I asked her, if that is true, then why could I not then give them the explanation I got from God with my mouth (concerning why the BOM has been revised), and as usual, the missionaries weaseled their way out of the questions that refuted them. They also made it clear to me (and were deceptive about it before) that you must believe the Book of Mormon first BEFORE READING IT, and then when I prayed before them at their offer, to know if the BOM was true within the hour, they apparently felt threatened, because (the one I was familiar with) then said to take up her challenge and read it for an hour, which was malicious of her to ask, since it was an obvious attempt to spike my prayer by adding in her own condition which if I did not meet, would negate my prayer. Her missionary friend also said that for God to answer my prayer would be like asking to get an A in my homework without first reading (but hypocritically, that Mormon who laid upon me the pointless condition to first read the BOM for an hour wanted me to get baptized based on a little bit of info she had given me about her religion) and which is how all Mormon missionaries are: eager to put a notch on their belt and slam dunk you into their religion without going through the hard work of explaining why they should be believed. How is it they can require me to first read for one hour when Mormons try to get you to pray for some feeling that their religion is true after they only talk to you for a few minutes the first time they meet a person they don’t think is Mormon, and yet after I repeatedly listen to them for days, I then have to read an hour more? Is that not malicious, hateful, and an act of faithlessness? What happened to the “pray to Heavenly father to know if these few lines of the Book of Mormon (we read to you stranger), are true? Now that you’ve gotten your feeling of confirmation, will you get baptized on day x?” Instead, now it’s, “Read for an hour or it’s like trying to ask for an A plus without doing the work.” Well then the Mormons by saying that, have condemned themselves ironically, since they work for their salvation, trying to earn it, and yet try to get everyone to skip over the most important work of all: understanding what salvation they are offering. And doesn’t that condemn Joseph Smith, WHO HAD NO BOOK OF MORMON, and who was clearly a poor studier if at all of the Bible, who prayed to know if God existed (and doesn’t the Bible say that God doesn’t answer prayers not made in faith, AND DIDN’T THE MORMON MISSIONARIES TELL ME TO BELIEVE FIRST AND IMPLY THAT NOTHING WOULD BE REVEALED TO ME UNLESS I DID?! YES!) and Joseph Smith also claimed that he prayed, “Oh Lord, what church shall I join?” and that gods appeared to him, the head flesh-God and his son, flesh-god Jesus (who is just one of many sons according to Mormons) and told him that they were all corrupt (and conveniently didn’t explain why or have Joseph do any thinking as to why right away, but according to Mormons, spent 9 years “translating” using his own imperfect ability, hence the imperfections and that God only showed him what to write (which isn’t translating at all). And that prayer he supposedly made to know what church to join is doubtful, because Joseph’s own mother said that he merely was, “pondering which of the churches were the true one.” and that at that time an angel told him that none were. And unlike the poorly studied Mormons and their founder, and most people of the world, I’ve spent years researching religion, logic and the Mormon religion, including thoroughly reading points against their religion and their defenses, BEYOND what most missionaries read (one former missionary even told me that he didn’t know what apologetics was and when I asked him what he thought about defending his religion, he replied, “You don’t have to defend your beliefs, it’s your beliefs, you know?”), yet I’m the one who is asking for an A without doing the work? These missionaries tell me you must believe first, yet I’m the one asking for an A plus without doing the work? Doesn’t getting an A+ require REASONING TO KNOW IF SOMETHING IS TRUE AND DOING HARD WORK IN MANY CASES TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE CORRECT ANSWER IS, AND NOT “BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU HEAR AND DO WHATEVER WE SAY”? And what happened to this “free agency” these Mormons obsess on? If I must believe and do whatever they say in order to have eternal life, my only option to get it, how is that “free agency”? In other words, if it’s a sin to think and see errors, how is that promoting free agency? If I must read another hour, upon another hour, upon another hour, AFTER I WAS TOLD TO JUST BELIEVE, TO JUST HAVE FAITH, WITHOUT THAT SPECIAL FEELING THEY TELL ME TO LOOK FOR, WHICH GOES AGAINST THEIR OWN PREACHING, how is that an endorsement of freedom? If they tell me to abandon reason and logic when I tell them I doubt of don’t believe based on what I read, and they tell me to BELIEVE FIRST BEFORE READING, to be biased then, and then when that doesn’t work, to READ FOR AN HOUR (AND REASON IF IT’S TRUE – which is hypocritical because the Book of Mormon says to “ponder with your heart”, not “mind”), which goes against their telling me to abandon reason, how is that freedom? If they tell me to do one thing, then the opposite when that thing doesn’t work, is that freedom, or hypocrisy and arbitrary lying? Mormons tell me that they want to hear my questions, but don’t answer them or answer them incorrectly, and imply that I’m faithless and lying when they can’t answer, wasting my time and insulting me by doing so, yet tell me that they learn by feelings they get and that they don’t have to defend heir beliefs ever (so why bother asking questions with your mind; why not just feel your way through life and forget the brain and mind!?), and yet that’s promoting freedom? Mindlessness is promoting freedom? No, that’s slavery to a malicious religion which wants you to be an enslaved and confused animal that ignores even it’s instincts, it’s common sense.

In that same sitting I was also told that you didn’t have to read all of the Book of Mormon to know it was true, WELL WHY THEN MUST I READ IT FOR ANOTHER HOUR ON TOP OF ALL THE OTHER VERSES I’VE READ FROM IT OVER THE YEARS?

They want me to believe them based on some feeling that could be from Satan or due to heartburn or tingling, which could be from sleeping on your legs. That may make people laugh, like it does for me sometimes, but it’s really sickening in context of all the other insane things they desire people to believe and their extreme hypocrisy.

When I stumped them they also gave me the “we’re just here to invite you” line aka “we don’t have to think, just talk at you like robots and like you’re one that should just believe whatever we say before we say it too”. I then asked, “But aren’t you to show me the truth?” which also stumped them. It’s also hypocritical that they pretended that I was biased from the start, and when I told them that I was against bias for no reason, skepticism, and that neutrality is logical when first hearing someone, they pretended to agree, but near the end of their attempt to just talk at me, made it clear that logic doesn’t matter, that what appear to be mistakes to me don’t matter, or them either, and that you must believe first. I told them that that wasn’t logical because what if Satan was about to deliver a speed to them and lie to them, should they trust him first? And they skipped right over that question. I sensed all along form their anxious-to-convert-you behavior and rush to baptize me that they were presumers, and wanted me to be one, based on some feelings they had.

Just before they had come over I had found more hypocrisy from the Mormons, as I had discovered that in their Book of Mormon, it says that a group of people were to be judged by some other mere humans as being apart of their church or not, and if not, that there names would be blotted out and they would burn in the eternal fire of Hell. When I told the missionaries that that was hypocritical, because Mormons libeled Christians as “slamming people into Hell”, and that that passage I was talking about went beyond what Christians were allowed to do, the one I hadn’t met laughed, and said that it was like trying to get rid of wolves out of the group of sheep, otherwise they’d destroy them (well then shouldn’t then be done continuously? And if that is true, then the Mormons are destroyed, because many wolves are in their church, which I have video and audio evidence of and which was clearly shown by the Mountain Meadows Massacre.) Further, where in that passage or any other does it say that the “sheep” were in immanent danger of being destroyed or any time soon by these hidden wolves? Neither had an answer. I also pointed out that that passage was teaching destiny (blotting people’s names out of the Book of Life) and refuting the teaching that you could repent and change. The newer one pretended it wasn’t talking about destiny and both pretended you could still change after such a condemnation, but I pointed out that that language was referring to the Book of Life, and the newer one claimed that “it wasn’t clear”. That “not clear” statement is in contradiction to their claim that they can just ask God for an answer and get one and in contradiction to another missionary that had been with the one I was familiar with, who said that God’s word wasn’t vague. These Mormons cannot get their lies straight, and they are very aggravating, as they pretend to be willing to hear my questions, and even say they want to hear them, and yet when I pose them, they weasel around them, come up with different subjects or, as I warned them they would do, which they denied they would do, blame me for not “having faith” if I found errors.

When I brought up to the new one the absurdity of the Holy Spirit leaving you every time you sin and how that isn’t how a loving parent acts, she claimed that that was just punishment, when I asked how it was punishment if you didn’t even know it left you, and where the pain was, she had no answer. Pain is sin in the Mormon vocabulary. Instead God’s punishments are all ineffectual and “like not getting your favorite ice cream” as another Mormon missionary said and Hell is just a lower level of Heaven (hence why Mormons repeatedly act in contradictory ways, like they can do whatever they want to without punishment, and yet hypocritically claiming they can’t or they won’t get that favorite ice cream, and why they easily commit atrocities like the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and blissfully cover it up and act like it was “just an unexplainable thing” as one of them might dishonestly put it.

The new one also told me that I was trusting in myself by my claim that I was trusting that God had forgiven me (and of course gave me no evidence for that, and by everything she said admitted to having none, so she was wanting me to trust in her feelings and that of her Mormon friends, hypocritically, and the only way I would be right, was to first trust her which she implies is “trusting God”, but which is clearly blasphemy. She also gave me the non-nonsensical teaching (which is the same as Catholics) which is that I didn’t understand because I didn’t have the Spirit in me (WELL THEN WHY READ THE BOOK OF MORMON, FOR AN HOUR OR AT ALL?). And if the Spirit leaves you the moment you sin, then surely they don’t know what they are reading either, since people sin every few minutes, and no doubt these Mormons were angry at me for not just believing whatever they told me, no matter how many times they contradicted themselves. Another logical fallacy that results from saying that you need the Holy Spirit to understand is asking someone to read the Book of Mormon to understand it, even though you don’t have the Spirit. Why bother if you won’t be able to understand it and the Spirit isn’t letting you? Is there a point to looking at sentences that make no sense? Of course some Mormons will say, “You can still understand some of it without the Holy Spirit,” WHICH IS WHAT I REPEATEDLY TOLD THE MORMONS, telling them also that you can understand parts of the Bible and nonBiblical things without the need for the Spirit. I told them this because of their false claim that you need the Spirit to understand whatever they claim I’m not able to understand. If that were true, then EVERYTHING a person can’t understand requires the Holy Spirit to enable or work through a person to understand. And could you believe these missionaries had no response to that either? Can you believe that naive teen missionaries whose only knowledge of literature is the Book of Mormon, their endless Mormon doctrinal rantings, and some of the Bible, which they hate reading because it contradicts their Scripture and persuades them to think for themselves and to trust in God, rather than then their evil hearts? Can you have faith in that?

The one missionary I was familiar with also posed another logical fallacy at me, which was, “Have you read in the Book of Mormon that tried to get you to do something bad?” Or something almost exactly like that. I told her she was oversimplifying things when she insisted I give her a yes or no answer. It was clearly an oversimplification, because the Book of Mormon isn’t the only “divine” revelation in their Brigham Young sect, but include much more (insane) teachings. The fact is: trying to get someone to believe lies is bad and if you believe lies, it’s bound to get you to do bad. And it does in fact try to get you to do bad things: It tries to get you to judge people based on false laws, lies, to believe that there can be no such thing as grammar errors, or punctuation errors, and that you can know the truth merely based on feelings and that you can claim that God is speaking through you regardless of how many mistakes you make, which means if you promote breaking God’s laws, that no matter how nonsensical that is or how bad your grammar is, even if it’s nonsensical, that the feelings of the one claiming to be speaking God’s word should just be trusted if he or she says he’s giving God’s word. The Mountain Meadows Massacre is an excellent example of how believing lies can end up in death.

The new missionary did admit one error though, which she confessed on her own, which was when she mistakenly said that Moses had written the commandments, and ended up deceiving me about that till she pointed out her error. But even that makes a point: should you trust first and believe mistakes like that, or LISTEN first and believe what you find is true? And doesn’t the “trust first” doctrine clearly go against the Bible which says, “keep me from the sin of presumption” and “Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica [for] they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” (Acts 17:11)? Instead, the Mormons teach/ask (obsessively): “what do you feel?” or “did you feel anything?” or “how do you feel about that?” or say, “search your heart”, deliberately forgetting this verse: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? ” (Jeremiah 17:9). They also pretend that only positive feelings matter (and any negative ones are of the devil or confusion no doubt, because Mormons couldn’t possibly be wrong about anything, despite admitting there are errors that were revised out of their “most correct book in the world”, and admitting that there are missing commas (which are not missing in other larger and more complex literary works)).

And to you Mormons who agree with the insanity of these missionaries: trust me first before believing what you read from me, and trust everything anyone says against the Mormon religion before reading it, just have faith without any evidence, just as you say you are to do.

And to you Mormons who want evidence that this post is true, why not just pray for feelings? Why desire evidence if only faith matters as you believe and/or teach? Aren’t you being hypocritical if you have such a desire? See what believing the lie of “trust in your heart” gets you? How do you miss that half of America is divorced because they trust in their feelings? How do you not understand that it’s because of peopling trust IN THEIR HEART, which you wrongly pretend is “disbelieving Mormons’ hearts, is why the world is divided and conflicted and full of broken families, destroyed families, pain and death? Are you not severely to completely blind to this obvious thing? Stop accusing of others as being blind and lost when it’s you who are blind and lost. God is not the author of confusion.

May God come back soon and put a stop to all lies and those who are against “let us reason” but who want you to trust in your “desperately wicked heart” and calling that “trusting in God” once and for all.

Are Atheists Less Intelligent Than Theists In General? Judge.

In response to a the Cambridge Professor “Simon Baron-Cohen”, who wants everyone to be more specific then simply calling people “evil” and not looking into why a people are evil (as if no one ever tries to find out why people do evil things even though both former theists and religious people obviously do so all the time and though the Bible makes it clear why people are evil), an atheist named “Hector”, supposedly from Scotland, said,

I can buy this more than I can buy evil being a result of direct intervention by the Devil or any other made up mystical being. Why shouldn’t it be the case that “evil” people coming from terrible backgrounds, starved of love, nurturing and have suffered maltreatment, isolation and rejection. Why shouldn’t it be the case that society can looked into ways of fixing things.

- Hector, Edinburgh, Scotland, 08/5/2011 19:10

Click to rate     Rating   (0)

– Source

So atheists are smarter than Christians huh.

Here’s my reply to comment:

“I can buy this more than I can buy evil being a result of direct intervention by the Devil or any other made up mystical being.”

The Devil isn’t “mystical”. And why would you be willing to “buy into” a made up being at all? I sure wouldn’t be willing to believe in lies. But an atheist would, as you admitted in your careless rant.

“Why shouldn’t it be the case that “evil” people coming from terrible backgrounds, starved of love, nurturing and have suffered maltreatment, isolation and rejection.”

Sadly, that jumble of words didn’t make any grammatical sense, so bad is the grammar, no point can be discerned by me, which is sad, since I usually can see the missing point in pointless and badly worded arguments.

“Why shouldn’t it be the case that society can looked into ways of fixing things.”

So, in your dark troll cave, no one has ever been “fixed” by becoming a Christian? No one has ever gotten better? No one has ever looked into “fixing” anyone? No Christian has? No Christian has ever helped anyone else to become a Christian and become more mentally stable and more logical? Get out of your dark troll hole and stop assuming things and babbling nonsense.

Hokey Hogue: False Propheteer

Right now, on the Coast to Coast AM homepage, it says,

Prophecies & Antichrist (Wed 05-04)

In the first half of the show, prophecy and Nostradamus expert John Hogue shared some predictions for the rest of 2011, and talked about how some of Nostradamus’ quatrains may reflect on current events. Nostradamus had written that a “black and future king” would be involved in a war with the Third Antichrist, and Hogue suggested this “king” could refer to Obama, and the Antichrist (or Mabus, as he is named) was Osama bin Laden.

About John Hogue. Hogue is a political, weather and astrological analyst who based on those studies and his feelings (more than logical reasoning), makes predictions about what might happen, and fraudulently passes them off as prophecies. According to John, on a previous Coast to Coast AM show either in 2010 or 2009, he misdefined “prophecy” as being a “possible future”. Think about that. Using Hogue’s bad logic, prophecy isn’t prophecy, it’s really guessing, and if you get one of your guesses right, it was chance, and any reasonable “prophecy” you get wrong is not really wrong, because it might have happened, but because we each control our destiny (which Hogue also believes we can do), prophecies can never be 100% sure. If the future isn’t destined by one person alone, God, how can anyone know what will happen being that there are countless variables to influence what will happen next, making it highly unknowable? Hogue’s believe that we each control our destiny is also illogical, because it’s impossible. It’s like saying the sun can be in two places at the same time, or that two people can both marry the same woman at once. And back to the definition of prophecy: it means to “foretell the future” (by the ability to either perfectly predict what will happen based on perfect knowledge of the past and/or present and/or future), not “to foretell a future possibility” (which is one of the meanings of “prediction”), and prophecy doesn’t mean “to predict a temporary future” either. Incredibly, dictionary.com get’s it wrong, but maybe not incredible if it’s only a generic dictionary.

I listened to the Jan 27, 2010 C2CAM show and noticed that Hogue does not truly base any of his visions an actual visions of the future, but based on his analysis of past and current events. I imagine Hogue deceives many into thinking that he is a a prophet by riding on the coat tails of Nostradamus’ terrible work, and by repeatedly quoting from him and confusing the meanings of “prediction” and “prophecy”, and by doing so, is also appealing to those who want to be prophets but who don’t have the gift of prophecy, and providing for them a false and easy way of doing so, that also does not carry any responsibility for error. Basically Hogue repeatedly performs a mental sleight of hand. He also appeals to liberals by using his false prophecies for liberal propaganda, warning people that global warming and polluting “Gaea” and “Mother Nature” will greatly harm them if they don’t do things to stop the global warming and pollution.

Penn and Teller also gave clues about what kind of person Hogue is. Unfortunately Penn and Teller are atheists who are propagandists for the Mainstream Science Cult.

It’s obvious, after having listened to a lot of Hogue’s ranting, that he is a vain and self-righteous ignoramus when it comes to logic and truth, who spends more time appearing on shows to give his insight into what Nostradamus predicted and why, preaching his personal opinions, and writing stupid books for profit, rather than studying the truth and preaching it.