Joseph Smith was a mixed-up child. He may have been sexually abused. His father was a Unitarian. Many Unitarians have turned out to be homosexuals and homosexual apologists (decidedly antichrist). He claimed to have religious visions (hallucinations) of God and Jesus where God was/is a human being. That he would envision God in such a way is understandable given the Biblical passage saying God created man in God's image. It would then be a "literalist" vision. I'm not going to attempt to even summarize his whole history here. I'm only going to touch on salient highlights (dark points, as I see them).

Joseph was a seer much along the lines of New Age occultism in its negative sense. He hired out as one who would show where buried treasure lay by using his "magical" ability to ascertain the location of hidden treasure via seer stones in the bottom of his hat into which hat he would stick his face. It's called divination.

Joseph told a story that he was visited by an angel (one should think he was suggesting an angel on the order of an archangel of the Bible such as Michael or Gabriel). The angel Moroni (who was once a human being; an original American) told him where some golden plates were hidden under a rock on a hill within walking distance of the farm he lived on near the town of Manchester in New York State. The golden plates, of course, correspond to the golden tablets of Moses (the lawgiver). Joseph claimed that he found the plates in the 1820's and translated the plates via "Urim and Thummim" (a pair of stones). The plates and the stones disappeared. The translation became the Book of Mormon upon which the Mormon religion and Mormon Church {which includes but is not limited to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)} are founded.

The Book of Mormon is named after the American Indian named "Mormon" who was the father of Moroni and claims that ancient Israelites came to North America before any Europeans (before the Vikings even) and founded great cities and made war amongst themselves and one side was eventually wiped out. The book also claims that Jesus came to the Americas. Joseph preached this and the Book was printed and published in 1830. People heard it and read it and started following him as a prophet of God.

Others saw Smith and his followers as a dangerous cult. Read on. He left New York on account of it among other reasons and moved to Kirkland, Ohio.

It must be understood at this point that Smith was in his mid twenties and asking others to give over everything to his cause and to follow him in absolute obedience. He became their supreme religious prophet, military commander, judge, lawgiver (his word was law), financial controller, and moral (actually immoral) enforcer.

Smith fought for land. He coveted land. This was Old Testament thinking. He saw himself the new Moses of his followers. This land-coveting and violent-taking runs diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Smith also mishandled the financial affairs so much so that his Temple construction in Ohio was a failure. Building an edifice to his egotistical vision bankrupted his church and followers for a time. Smith envisioned a communal (communist) existence with free love or free sex called plural marriage or polygamy or in modern terms "wife swapping": decidedly antichrist. Smith did this but denied it for years. That's called blatant lying. He was obviously not a pacifist (contrary to Jesus), as he engaged in violence to the death. (Note: Not all Mormons swapped wives.)

He tried finding buried treasure in Salem, Massachusetts of all places: the site of the famous witch hunts. He failed. He printed up illegal fiat currency for his church in Kirkland. It failed. He fled to Missouri to avoid prosecution.

Joseph said that the original Garden of Eden was in what is today the United States of America, in Independence, Missouri. He planned to headquarter there eventually apparently. He was met there with hate for his teachings and practices as well.

Anyway, locals nearly always either converted or hated Smith and his followers. There was little middle ground. His religion and ambitions were seen as such a threat that calls for total extermination were made by official governments (Missouri Governor, Lilburn Boggs) ostensibly with largely Christian leadership. The Federal Government actually ended up outlawing Mormonism it was seen as such a grave threat. Everywhere he went, he was eventually loathed by many of the locals who were there before him. He would then point his followers to yet another location claiming it was the Promised Land. His followers went along with all of this nonsense for obvious selfish reasons: visions of grandeur, land, power, wealth, loose morals, etc., all to be cloaked under the guise of Christianity obscenely twisted by the obviously demented Joseph Smith.

Vengeance became the word. Smith feigned a loathing of war but made it anyway. It is known in American history as the Mormon War.

Kicked out of Missouri, Smith relocated in Illinois.

It was apparently at this transition time from Missouri to Illinois that Brigham Young rose in the eyes of the followers. Smith sent Young and twelve others to England for more converts. This time, Smith's efforts paid off. Many oppressed Englishmen left with their families for Illinois and on.

Smith made the most tentative and fleeting strides in what he named Nauvoo, Illinois. He had visions of building a great city under his complete control and authority. He continued "revealing" (elaborating upon) his visions.

Unlike the eternal God of Jesus, the creator of all things, Smith's god was more as the demiurge of certain brands of Gnosticism. Smith's god of flesh and bone created out of chaotic, pre-existing matter. This is of course, humanism and is in fact, Satanism and is also known as Luciferian and Luciferianism where man rises up to usurp God the spirit giving credit to himself rather than acknowledging the true origin. Jesus though teaches very clearly and plainly that no one, not he, not anyone, exceeds the God spirit who is the origin of matter and energy, the very existence of which things come and are supported. Without Jesus's and my God, there is only God without man. It means that man is nothing without God who created and allows for matter. In his level of theological understanding, Joseph Smith was a confused, misled, and misleading adolescent.

Joseph said that his church was the restoration of the original religion of Christianity. However, he radically diverged from the teachings of Christ; so, he was a complete apostate leading, and still leading from his grave, many others astray from truth. Hence Mormonism today, which now continues to advocate militarism ("Nice" but deadly), is also largely rabidly capitalistic. The LDS Church of Brigham Young in Utah is simply morphing itself into super-patriot Americans, contrary to Joseph Smith. There are traditionalists whom many refer to as Fundamentalist Mormons, and rightly so. They still practice plural marriage as practiced by Joseph Smith.

Some other important aspects to discern as being contrary to Jesus are baptizing the dead. The largest Mormon group headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, was actually baptizing everyone who is dead until Jews and others objected. Now, baptism is both symbolic and effective (effective if accompanied by real conversion). Those who died without attaining life as Jesus defined it, and still defines it, are dead and will not be a part of the resurrection. Smith taught otherwise. His followers were busily baptizing every dead soul regardless of Jesus. Consider how off and far that is.

Joseph Smith also preached that marriages could be for time (until death of the flesh as commonly understood) or for both time and eternity. Jesus though teaches that fleshly marriage is not in Heaven. Jesus teaches that we will be as the angels who do not marry thus. There is no sex in Heaven. There is no procreation. It isn't necessary. There is no reason to carry on the race through flesh births because no one dies.

Furthermore, Mormonism is to be secret. It is a secret society, per se. Its rituals may not be shown to or stated to non-Mormons and even to Mormons who have not attained certain levels of acceptance by the leaders. This is very much as with Freemasonry. Many people believe Smith modeled much of his religion on Freemasonry, itself loaded with antichrist, humanistic, usurping tenets and desperately desirous of remaining secretive and calculating at its top or bottom depending upon one's perspective.

Smith had himself ordained "King of the Kingdom of God." Blasphemy. He organized a Mormon army called the Nauvoo Legion. The Mormon militia was huge. It was half the size of the U.S. Army. He dressed up as a military general. He sent ambassadors to foreign countries and said the U.S. would be overthrown. Smith had preached that each of his followers were gods; not parts of God when becoming one with God spirit but individual gods. This can only be taken in light of his pronouncements that God was more akin to the demiurge. It is not to be confused with Jesus's logical refutation of the Pharisees and others when Jesus reminded them that their own father, David, had called them (his people) gods. We are God is we accept things as Jesus expressed them. We are not otherwise. We are not usurpers but joiners in sharing in righteousness, not free sex but rather faithfulness and harmlessness. Polygamy did great harm to the psyches (souls) of the Mormon women and men.

A tipping point was when a local dissenter printed in his newspaper that Smith was, and I paraphrase, insane. The paper denounced Smith's egoism. It showed him as dangerous. Smith had the printing press destroyed. Now, I hold with censoring evil in the Church. Those who refuse to work toward perfecting in Christ to the best of their ability and refuse to repent when rightly rebuked by a brother or sister, per Jesus's specific instructions, is then not part of the body and may not remain in the bodies confidence or be allow to remain within speaking or doing as if the apostasy is acceptable or condoned. Jesus did clean the Temple. I'm all for that. Smith is quite another matter. The newspaper was the one doing the cleaning. Smith "crucified" the messenger. I'm not saying that I hold with everything the newspaper owner believed or disbelieved, as I haven't read the paper or discussed it with the owner (now deceased, obviously). The truth though is that Smith was way off the narrow way and the paper was right in warning the people, just as I'm warning here and now that others not be taken in.

Now, freedom of the press being an essential part of American philosophy, the others in the area took Smith prisoner. He was so hated that they didn't wait for the regular judicial system to turn its wheels but rather stormed the jail, and one shot Smith who fell out of the second story window and died.

Eventually, Brigham Young then led the exodus to Salt Lake City, Utah. He assumed total leadership. He too was militaristic. When the U.S. grew rapidly (especially via Fillmore's War, a wickedly conceived plan to strip Mexico of what is now largely the Western United States beyond the Louisiana Purchase) and sought to annex Utah as a state, trouble brewed, and Mormons slaughtered a wagon train from Arkansas in what is called the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Some say Young wasn't behind it. I don't believe it. I don't say that anyone can prove he knew and even ordered it, but I don't just accept it that he didn't.

Brigham Young became the new or next Moses of the largest group of Mormons. He was actually appointed Territorial Governor and Superintendent of Indian Affairs by U.S. President Millard Fillmore. No Jeffersonian separation of church and state in that, not that I hold with Jefferson. I don't.

As for wives, frankly, Young had a harem. Some say it was 55 wives. It's not much disputed that he had at least 50 wives with whom he had sexual intercourse. Apparently 6 of them had another husband or more.

Also, Young taught that Blacks had the mark of Cain and were forbidden. Smith though had been an abolitionist, although the Book of Mormon does say that the darker skinned people of North America were the wicked ones versus the fairer skinned and that the present-day Indians descended from those wicked ones. For the sake of worldwide expansion, the so-called prophets of the LDS Church have conveniently rescinded this doctrine of Young's. Which Christians claim that Christians may rescind the doctrines of Jesus? None do. Anyone claiming that he or she may rescind the doctrines of Jesus is clearly known not to be Christian. Now, top that off with Smith's and Young's doctrines being at odds with Christ's in the first place and you have confusion upon confusion.

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." — Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110)

Remember, Young was a prophet in the eyes of his church and could not be speaking anything but the law of God. Yet, the current church he founded in Salt Lake City has renounced is teachings on plural marriage and race. It's called hypocrisy. If you haven't yet determined that this church is not Christian and is a total fake, you're blind to truth.

Young further held out that Adam is our God.

Young wanted "Mormon country" to be just that: an independent nation-state. He compromised though, which had allowed him to be named the Utah Territory Governor. He was reported as interfering with U.S. territorial judges, and U.S. President James Buchanan sent a military group with Young's non-Mormon replacement. The Utah War commenced. The Mormons fought using guerilla warfare tactics and succeeded for a time. The outcome was though inevitable, as the Mormons could not possibly stand up to the ever-growing United States. It was at this though that the Mountain Meadows Massacre took place.

So, there you have it. Mormonism is definitely not Christian. Anyone who says that it is, is duped or flat out lying in the most willful sense.

I do not accept Mormons as Christian brothers or sisters. It's impossible. Joseph Smith, et al., will not be in my Heaven unless they repent of their woeful errors, as I have had to repent of mine. There is nothing wrong with that. God has many mansions. The Mormons will go to the one built by Joseph Smith. What they find there will be receiving the logical end result of their system. Exactly what that is God alone knows. Even Satan cannot understand it although he's there too: the whole point of this exercise.

Tom Usher

Additional reading:
"The Life of Joseph Smith."
"Unitarian Universalist Church of Reading, MA – Sermon."


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Wouldn't a denomination which most closely adhere's to Jesus Christ's teachings and ordinances be considered "Christian"?

      Wouldn't the denomination which continues Jesus Christ's esoteric rites considered "Christian"?

      • Brent Biddulph,

        Wouldn't a denomination which most closely adhere's to Jesus Christ's teachings and ordinances be considered "Christian"?

        Why do you ask this and link to a site when you have the post above that has already answered you? You don't drop your stone and walk away convicted by your conscience.

        Wouldn't the denomination which continues Jesus Christ's esoteric rites considered "Christian"?

        What esoteric rites? Describe one in detail right here. Only if you will brave the light will you describe in detail here what the Mormons hold to be an esoteric rite of Jesus Christ.

        Jesus hid no rites, sacraments, or ordinances. Stop spreading falsehood. Now you have been told in no uncertain terms.


        Tom Usher

    • Charles Martin

      Mormonism is here to stay. I find it fascinating that a group of 6 men in upstate New York, is now a church of over 12 million members, in 115+ countries. Their mission program is amazing.

      I would be all for some kind of accomodation.

      Mormons do not believe in "heaven'. They have a celestial kingdom, a terrestrial kingdom, and a telestial kingdom. they also do not believe in "hell". They have "outer darkness".

      • Charles Martin,

        No, Mormonism is not here to stay. It will absolutely disappear.

        Their mission program is theatrical (read contrived, artificial, rehearsed) and has no place in the spontaneous movement of the Holy Spirit that is at the core of real Christianity.

        Who are you that you are all for some kind of accommodation? Please explain who you are? Do you claim to be a Christian?

        By definition, Christianity is in opposition to Mormonism.

        As for heaven versus the kingdoms to which the Mormons imagine, it's a matter of semantics and crucial to discerning the errors that are their antichrist proposals. Jesus spoke and still speaks of Heaven proper. Anyone who doesn't "believe in 'heaven'" isn't with Christ in spirit here and will not be with Jesus in the hereafter. In addition Hell is outer darkness while it is also the bottomless pit and the lake of fire and all other pain and suffering.


    • Thomas James

      Most of the controversy of Mormonism concerns its teaching about polygamy which is allowed in the Old Testament. However Mormonism teaches that polgamy is the ideal state of man while Paul teaches that celibacy is preffered.

      • I've been called to do an emergency bit of work, so I'm saving my draft reply and will post it when I finish the emergency project. Thanks for your patience.

        • Hi Thomas James and All,

          This is cross posted as an article: "MORMONISM: ETERNAL, FLESHLY MARRIAGE AND OTHER ERRORS AND MATTERS," as follows:

          Hello Thomas James,


          As you know, I am not Pauline in that I don't agree with every last bit of his teaching; however, as that statement suggests, I agree with Paul on certain matters.

          Paul wrote, "But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you." (1 Corinthians 7:28 KJV)

          I agree with that. Although, were I to have been there, I would have asked him to elaborate on "trouble" for instance and not with an eye to dissenting but to know more about his view on the subject. Then I would have continued a dialogue with him as far as it would bear worthy fruit.

          I would have further qualified concerning many of Paul's statements about married couples and other matters. As to whether or not he would have agreed, I doubt he would instantly have done so and may never have or will. It's not for me to know that.

          A married person does not necessarily have to care for the things of the world in how he or she may please his or her spouse in the worldly sense. Spouses can and should live the Golden Rule toward each other and others. They should focus upon the teachings of Jesus concerning all things. That can be done even while they are sexually active with each other, even in the act itself. Sex can be and should be spiritual between them. It does not have to be merely carnal knowledge or contain any aspects of sin. We are not a form of Gnosticism that holds all flesh as inherently evil and unclean. It becomes defiled by what comes out from it: the spirit that inhabits it. Jesus is flesh and spirit and not defiled.


          As for having power over our own wills, as in 1Co 7:37, this is dangerous territory and must be qualified. We give over to God's will. We are not self-willed apart from God but God empowered. We do nothing without God. By bearing this in mind, we don't run such a risk of arrogance and secular-humanist error. We remain always joiners with God and never, never, never usurpers in any sense of the term "usurper" (rebellious to righteousness). We remain those who better understand and appreciate the huge importance in the oneness being a state of service only (accept that we receive the service of others given freely through them by God else there would be no giving between and among the believers). This can and does end up being infinite and dead hairsplitting for those who insist upon arguing for ego sake to defend the errors of those they have chosen to follow, John Calvin being a case in point for more than 450 years.

          He split hairs he didn't understand. His error led him to being a theocratic dictator who burned people at the stake, although he claimed he was against it in his heart. He could have stopped it. Improperly, he excused usury (interest; not just high interest). He condemned the poor as predestined to spiritual failure — that their world condition was a sign of their non-elect state, which is a total falsehood, as Jesus was without much in the way of that type of material possession. As with Paul though, this does not mean that there is not partial-truth in Calvin's writings. His theology just veered off the narrow way with many following to this day: Reformed Protestants, who also include the followers of Zwingli. The Presbyterians and Baptists are Reformed — Presbyterians following elders where Baptists traditionally are congregationalists (self-governing). I hold with congregationalism but with the Church being one body wherever it is. This then is Universal, Unified Congregationalism if you will.

          Christians do not make themselves little gods only. I add the words "little" and "only," as Jesus was a God and God for the following reason. He joined God's family and wholeness of being never exceeding but, again, always serving. The parts of God are unified, so gods and demigods is not the whole story and never has been in Jesus's book.


          These distinctions are lost on many and especially the Muslims. They wrongly fear the familial relationship with the real Creator for fear of arrogance and being slapped down by the hard god of their own minds and hearts. Oh, I know they have soft spots. It should not be taken away but grown to subsume them under Christ, who taught us never to deviate as Mohammed deviated when he misunderstood and caved to the temptation of violence.

          Leave it to the angels to do as instructed by God alone. This is for al Qaeda. This is for the Taliban. This is for the Mujahideen. This is for the Pashtuns. What is this Pashtunwali (code)? What is this Nang (honor)? What is this Badal (vengeance)? It is taking God into one's own hands. It is usurping. You fear to become sons and daughters of God, but you will violate God's law that says to leave vengeance to God. Yes, you do not do as our Father has rightly instructed. The Roman Empire took vengeance on Israel, but look where they are now. Islam takes vengeance, and look at its state or condition. Do you think it will be resurrected upon error?

          If you are having trouble with the logic, understand that Mohammed said that Mohammed was not God. Therefore, he took vengeance in his own hands falsely imagining, at best, that he was doing the will of the God of Jesus Christ.


          For the libertarian capitalists and other anti-collectivist, anti-communal, (anti-Christian Commons) libertarians, Jesus's teaching is the collective spirit, but it is not a hive mentality on the order of bees. There's no sting in it. It is entirely consensus-based. It is entirely voluntary. Souls are free to go off the narrow way and to be enslaved by evil that always degrades the wholeness — makes the fruit worse for others and self. It is fracturing. The farther and further from God, the worse it gets.

          Now, all of that said as part of explaining how things go off and where I started concerning the Pauline, we should add that the author of Revelation wrote the following:

          And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. (Revelation 14:3-4 KJV)

          That is a direct response to Joseph Smith's spiritual progeny who cannot learn that song from where they are or will be if they follow Smith to where he is now and will remain unless spirits dead of the Holy Spirit can be taught and changed into real Christians (forgiven for blaspheming the Holy Spirit in any age to come). How many ages there are in eternity.

          Jesus did hold up virginity. His parables more than suggest it. He did say the angels in Heaven don't marry and that we will be as they are. However, his parable says that virginity itself is not sufficient.

          "Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not." Matthew 25:11-12 KJV)

          That is one of the parables where the parties involved more closely parallel the literal conceptualizations. It must be remembered that Jesus said "Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom." (Matthew 25:1 KJV)

          He said, "likened unto". It is like it. He drew an analogy. He taught via similes. Sometimes he taught without such devices, as when he told the disciples exactly that he was the son of God, was going to our father, and they were to follow according to plan.


          The only way to understand the terms is to open up to them in softheartedness. Hardheartedness closes off Heaven. It's why so-called Christian members of the U.S. military don't exist in the highest. They will not be in the highest. As to where they will be unless they repent and go beyond John the Baptist's admonition to "Do violence to no man, neither accuse falsely; and be content with your wages," God alone knows. Real Christians are to follow John's advice but still come out of (leave) the military completely, just as we are to help one another to leave the capitalist world and the sexual world where there is any sin (that includes homosexuality even in mind).

          Reading the parables is not what most people would consider a technical skill in the current parlance. It is more akin to art, although not dark but its opposite. It is something where feeling is essential. The technical is not useless however. The two are to go together and arrive at the unselfish end. If the end is perceived as selfish for the Christian, the reader as missed it. That's a fixed rule for the Real Christian in reading Jesus.

          By the way, the oil for the lamps in the parable contains the rule. As with virginity, it is not sufficient unto itself if not understood and adhered to in light of the full message.


          So, we look toward "retirement" in Heaven with the Earth as a weigh station, both literal and figurative. The Earth though is transformed (or regenerated if you don't like the term transformed) right along with us. This then becomes the New Earth and New Heaven conflated as one anew. We are in it. We have it now in mind and heart in process — being perfected by God.

          So, Thomas, what did you think of the post and this comment-reply? Do you hold that the Mormons are Christians? I doubt it.


          Are your Social Security checks going to go into the Commons even while we will never retire from service? Does God need that money and mammon? We will translate it on the altar to our sanctified cause that will end the wicked mammon in humanity.

          How's your wife coming along? Is she beginning to see the light? I leave it to the Holy Spirit and you to decide how much you are given to reveal in this forum.


          Where are you concerning fundamentalism versus pentecostalism? What I mean is, do you hold with the movement of the Holy Spirit in your life? Pentecostals hold with that that movement still occurs.


          I hold with that, although I do not hold with the "unintelligible language" interpretation of Acts 2:4. I do hold with charismatic gifts.


          What about the Emergent Church Movement, do you hold with it or parts thereof? I am rather a restorationist in a sense.


          I appreciate the emphasis upon dialogue in the Emergent Movement, but it seems fixed on condoning homosexuality, which is inherent error, as it is harmful always and selfish apart from God regardless of any emotionalism in it.

          It is for that and other reasons that I steer clear of embracing the worldly version of ecumenism and, even more, syncretism.

          What are your views and are they fixed, or are you accepting Real Liberal Christianity as I've outlined it on this site and am developing?

          Lastly, how did your job prospects turn out? Were you hired by the oil company? Did they insist upon working you two shifts a day, 7 days a week or whatever?

          It's amazing how humans are caught by the greedy.

          SON OF MAN

          "And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man." (Luke 21:34-36 KJV)

          The Son of man (the right one, for there are many and some are fallen: false christs)


          "The angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just" even as we do in nonviolence for we have not made them wicked without our own heartfelt and permanent repentance nor do we seek vengeance nor promote wrath between and among them. Reconcile these things you sons and daughters of the one and true God. This is not a televangelist, "End Times" vision. It has been happening since Jesus and will continue until Kingdom come and nothing but on Earth.

          This is not in any way an enticement to sin, and all readers here really know it. If you, reader, whoever you are, despise me for writing it, so be it. I will press on without you.

          Tom Usher

          Please comment here.