When They Tell You What Underwear to Use - You Know You're in a Cult:

Uh huh. So what? This is an open forum. Your comment is available to the public. And people who have an account can respond to anything that you say in the open form.

You called my comment "tripe." So, I was showing you to whom and about what I had written what I did and why.
He's just making reference to the easy salvation that you all offer. It doesn't matter what you guys do.

False. Misrepresenting what Christians believe about the Gospel--again.
That is the point that is being made.

Which was pointless.
The very last phrase in the quote that Paul gave from the Old Testament where it says, "there is none good, no not one", it says "There is no fear of God before their eyes". Fear is another word for respect or reverence. What we wear when we worship shoes respect. there is a time and a place for everything. Your argument about attire both in what is acceptable in church and how it applies to the wedding feast is nonsense.

it is Mormonism and your lying false prophet founder that had no "fear of God" before HIS eyes, since he lied, didn't follow the WoW that he preached, broke his marriage vows, married 2 14 year old girls and even other men's wives--and yes, at least 2 were for time as well as eternity. I have proven that several times on here. He had NO fear of God whatsoever, since he made false prophesies in God's name, lied about having only one wife (and this was right before he was murdered), and boasted that he did a better job of keeping a church together than even the apostles and Jesus did. The man arrogantly and falsely made a prophesy about himself in the OT, near the end of Genesis, I think it is, in his so-called "translation" of the KJV which was already in English, so what was there to translate? He also added to God's holy words in the Bible, like in John 1:1--a totally execrable translation with no Greek manuscript copy evidence for such a "translation" whatsoever. The list goes on!

So, before you go criticizing true Christians and true Christianity, it might be wise to take the plank out of the collective Mormon "eyes", especially about your lying false prophet founder, before telling us about the speck in ours.
At what point would you say ones attire is inappropriate? Should we wear clothes at all?

Sure we should wear clothes. What a silly rhetorical question!
Should two piece bathing suits be allowed?

Silly rhetorical question. No one said one word about bathing suits.
I think common sense and wisdom help most people understand and determine for themselves what appropriate attire is for church worship.

I agree.
The fact that this is even a discussion suggests a willingness to assert ridiculous arguments. Church service is not the wedding feast.

Tell this please, to your friend Richard, who criticized wearing sandals and Hawaiian shirts in church. People in our church do BOTH, in the summer. At least the men do. I wear sandals to church in the summer.
I've already explained the parable. I don't expect you to agree with it but there may be some critical thinkers that might see the connection.

OH, I see the connection, all right. This sums up pretty much what I believe this parable is all about:

As I have said before, I'm not here to convert any of our critics. They are a stiff necked and hard hearted people who will not hear the truth.

That describes many Mormons who have taken their discernment, locked it up, and thrown away the key, when it comes to what they believe about God, the true Jesus Christ of the Bible ,and the TRUE Gospel message--which does NOT include 3 levels of heaven, building expensive, lavishly decorated temples, and doing various ordinances within those temples,, in order to be "worthy" of "exaltation" to "godhood" in the CK after death.
Most people who are seeking the true are not making posts here. Many investigators of our church search online for answers to difficult questions. This is one site that shows up frequently in searches. They need to see answers.

People won't get the truth in your church. They will receive a bastardized version of Who and What God is, Who and What Jesus is and what He did for us on the cross, and WHAT the TRUE Gospel message is. Yours is an iron pyrite church, which looks like the genuine thing on the outside, but when one goes beneath the surface, sees that it is a bastardized version of true Christianity.
You have your chance to make your case, but none of you will.

Sure we have, though I agree that sometimes we don't take the time to actually state the true Gospel message on here. Dianaiad made me cognizant of that fact years ago, bless her heart. But when we DO teach the true Gospel message on here, Mormons reject it. It is just too....simple for them. Too...plain. "You mean, Jesus did it ALL? We can't do ANYTHING to save ourselves?" And the simple, correct answer is "No! It is the Gift of God, so no one will be able to boast that he or she was able to do this or that to save themselves. There is NO room for personal boasting in the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. "God opposes the proud but gives Grace"--meaning His underserved favor--"to the humble." (James 4:6)
This leaves the door wide open for members of our church to make a case in the midst of your vitriol. It's so much easier shine in the midst of the darkness.

What "vitriol"? Unlike some on here, I have not called anyone "arrogant" or "stiff necked and hard-hearted", etc.
Richard's post simply claims that those who can present themselves with respect toward their God and don't are showing signs of disrespect.

I am aware of what he meant. So, wearing sandals and nice Hawaiian shirts to church is showing "disrespect"? Especially if they are clean...? How?
It's fine if you disagree. It doesn't make it any less true.
I never said it did.
 
Our critics don't have a clue about anything concerning that wedding garment. And the fact that one of them thinks it has to do with nice clothes is telling.
I never said the parable had to do with wearing nice clothes to church. Hence, why I asked the other Mormon poster if he knew what a metaphor was. Because of what he wrote in post no. 249 on this thread, I was not certain that he did. No mockery or disrespect was intended.
 
Last edited:
You are only partially correct here
I am 100% correct there. This is not a test. Your opinion about my explanation doesn't matter one bit.
correct that the wedding garments are a GIFT to all. Gifts are not earned
The the garment is not a Gift to all. All would be everyone and not everyone is invited. The servants that were sent out to invite the others are prophets and apostles and those commissioned by then to spread the word. Well, you have none of those so you all wouldn't be doing any inviting but consider yourselves invited. This is the word: "invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests". There's two situations here, those who are invited but won't come and those who will attend. If those who do, there are some who were invited but brought with them their own ideas and chose to enter in another way. Those would be the people who make up their own interpretation of the King's word. Those are the ones that say God is unchanging, yet decide to make up churches that are nothing like the church that the unchanging God established. Those that claim to be God's church but don't have the foundation that God established and have sheep herders instead of shepherds. There can be only one way and that is the way the king established. Those that attempt to come in some other way will be cast out. Bonnie, there is only one church on the earth today that was established by the king. That is the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All other churches are man-made. They have a form of Godliness but deny the power thereof. Is the atonement able to make us clean? Can it make us perfect? Will our deeds be expunged forever through the blood of the Lamb? Would that not make us as perfect as the Lamb? If perfect, then why not joint - equal - heirs with the Lamb? That's what the scriptures teach. Why don't you believe it? Why do you spend any effort whatsoever denying the power of God? And yet you all do. You all act like it exonerates your position, but actually it proves your guilt. You all are the very thing God said was the problem with the churches of the day and since that day, it has only gotten worse.

Coming in the way the king established is what we need to do to earn the right to be in the wedding feast. Whether a gift is earned or not doesn't change the fact the basis of whether one can remain at the wedding feast depends on what one does. Two issues there. One, they way he came in and two, that they ignored the king's commandments.
 
...is born again from above of water and Spirit. No Mormon temples necessary.
There you go, adding to the scriptures words that are not there. Then compounding it by misrepresenting what we believe. It's sad really. So desperate. Your churches will be empty and all your false teachers will be forgotten. Nothing will stop the true Church of Jesus Christ from rolling forth until it fills the earth. Especially not your vitriol. Pity yourself.
 
Just answer my question, Richard, if you please--are you saying wearing Hawaiian shirts and sandals to church is rebelling against God? Yes or no?
 
There you go, adding to the scriptures words that are not there.

Actually, they are there in the Greek. The word for "again" in John 3 also means "from above" if I remember right. But anyway, being born "from above" means the second birth, when we are reborn in Jesus Christ by grace through faith in Him.



But this is the kettle calling the pot black, since Smith wrote a prophesy about himself into the end of Genesis, which certainly is NOT there in the Hebrew; he also drastically changed John 1:1--

“In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the Word. And the Word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God,” (John 1:1, Joseph Smith Translation).

Most of these words are found nowhere in any ancient Greek manuscript copy of the NT. Take a look at a proper translation: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

So, your claim that I "added" words to that verse is totally empty. YOUR lying false prophet founder did so in John 1:1 in spades! And in Genesis!
Then compounding it by misrepresenting what we believe.

I misrepresented nothing.
It's sad really. So desperate. Your churches will be empty and all your false teachers will be forgotten.

Jesus did predict that, towards the end, the love of most will have grown cold, but those believers who persevere to the end will be saved. But it is YOUR church that is full of false teachers, teaching a false god--who was once a man on "an earth" who had to learn how to become a god--a false savior, who is also Satan's brother in the supposed pre-mortal existence, and a VERY false Gospel, which includes having to tithe in order to be "worthy" to get into your lavishly decorated whitewashed tombs you call "temples" in order to do dead works to a false god, to be exalted to godhood in the CK after death. NOTHING of this is even hinted at in the Bible. NOTHING. And all of the billions of dollars your church has stashed away, accumulating interest, will not do anything to save anyone in it.
Nothing will stop the true Church of Jesus Christ from rolling forth until it fills the earth. Especially not your vitriol. Pity yourself.
There was no vitriol in my post, just the God's honest truth. Everything I wrote about Smith was the truth. As Paul wrote, "Have I now become your enemy for telling you the truth?"
And it is Mormons I pity, for Jesus Christ suffered, bled, and died on the cross to save them from their sins, so that they can have peace with God and eternal life with Him after death....just as Jesus died for all. But Mormons reject the free gift of God in Christ Jesus our Lord for the dead, empty works their church makes them go through, in order to earn what Jesus suffered, bled, and died to give us as a gift--eternal life. You are a nice guy, boJ. I feel for you. May you stop resisting the HS and turn to the true Jesus Christ of the Bible to be saved, before it is too late.
 
Last edited:
The point being is the one who would not wear the wedding gown was in open rebellion and desired to show disrespect to the groom...
Bonnie tried to make the argument that her point wasn't in reference to the wedding feast. It seemed like a lame attempt to diver but I thought it was worth meet time to make the distinction about regular church attire. Our critics stumble about so much they hardly are able to keep thank of the point they are trying to make if any.

The same is true of our Christian friend, telling God they will honor him only as they so choose.... too prideful to be humble, to rebellious to come unto Christ... they claim Christ chooses them when in fact they choose to do it only on their own terms... oh my!
??

That does seem to be the case.
 
Bonnie tried to make the argument that her point wasn't in reference to the wedding feast. It seemed like a lame attempt to diver but I thought it was worth meet time to make the distinction about regular church attire. Our critics stumble about so much they hardly are able to keep thank of the point they are trying to make if any.

My discussion with Richard was originally about what to wear to church services. He seemed to think wearing Hawaiian shirts and sandals to church was disrespectful. Then HE posted the parable about the wedding feast. Which I know perfectly well is symbolic.
??

That does seem to be the case.
That case is wrong. Nothing in that post is the truth.
 
So, Richard, is wearing sandals and Hawaiian shirts to church a sign of "open rebellion"? Because it was you who originally said doing so showed disrespect to Jesus (paraphrasing). I showed pictures of what people wore 2000 years ago. Then you stated they had work clothes and surely they had fancier clothes (paraphrasing) and then posted the parable of the wedding feast and the man who didn't put on the wedding garment, supposedly to show that there were wedding garments back then. But in context, the wedding garment was a gift to all who were invited to the feast, from the giver of the feast. And has nothing to do with what we wear to church, since it is a parable about the Kingdom of God.
 
After all we can do. And all we can do is to be reconciled to the king.
See? In your church, grace only kicks in AFTER all WE can do--which is the opposite of true Biblical grace. Grace, by its very definition, is God's UNdeserved favor, which we receive through faith in His Son. Reread Eph. 2:8-9.

It is the gift of God. We don't earn grace "after all that we do." That would make it a wage earned. Not true grace.
 
You called my comment "tripe." So, I was showing you to whom and about what I had written what I did and why....


I am aware of what he meant. So, wearing sandals and nice Hawaiian shirts to church is showing "disrespect"? Especially if they are clean...? How?

So, Richard, is wearing sandals and Hawaiian shirts to church a sign of "open rebellion"? Because it was you who originally said doing so showed disrespect to Jesus (paraphrasing). I showed pictures of what people wore 2000 years ago. Then you stated they had work clothes and surely they had fancier clothes (paraphrasing) and then posted the parable of the wedding feast and the man who didn't put on the wedding garment, supposedly to show that there were wedding garments back then. But in context, the wedding garment was a gift to all who were invited to the feast, from the giver of the feast. And has nothing to do with what we wear to church, since it is a parable about the Kingdom of God.

Can someone tell me what kind of shoes and what color suit Jesus wore during the Last Supper? My 12 year-old-brother wore his best clothes to my wedding --- a clean tee shirt, clean tan jeans, and sneakers.
 
And did Jesus wear a tie?:)
This reminds me of the Big Discussion back in the hippie days, when if your hair was "too long", or you weren't wearing a suit (let alone a tie!), you were (a) obviously not saved, and (b) persona non grata in some churches. Thankfully, God does not use men's criteria to call people to Him!
 
This reminds me of the Big Discussion back in the hippie days, when if your hair was "too long", or you weren't wearing a suit (let alone a tie!), you were (a) obviously not saved, and (b) persona non grata in some churches. Thankfully, God does not use men's criteria to call people to Him!
It's not about the condition of the soul when God calls people to him. You can call them at any time and any condition in their life. The problem is what do you do after you've been called? If he's provided you the means to dress well they're not we not dress well? The preacher caught that there was a time and a season for all things. You do not wear Beach attire to church. No one knows the circumstances of the individual attending church. If I'm crossing the country and a motorcycle and all I have is my letters and blue jeans and a leather jacket then that's what I'll attend church in. I don't think anybody will bat an eye. The whole idea that church attire has anything to do with the wedding feast is absurd.

At the wedding feast, the entire was provided by the king. Choosing not to wear that attire has consequences.
 
I was in a ward where a recent convert was previously asked to pass the sacrament the following week, but he came to church not wearing a suit and was informed that he couldn't pass the sacrament dressed improperly. Perhaps he didn't own a suit!
 
I was in a ward where a recent convert was previously asked to pass the sacrament the following week, but he came to church not wearing a suit and was informed that he couldn't pass the sacrament dressed improperly. Perhaps he didn't own a suit!
I wonder if the disciples at the Last Supper were wearing suits and ties...
 
This reminds me of the Big Discussion back in the hippie days, when if your hair was "too long", or you weren't wearing a suit (let alone a tie!), you were (a) obviously not saved, and (b) persona non grata in some churches. Thankfully, God does not use men's criteria to call people to Him!
You got that right! Look at this, RiJoRi:


God called these bikers just as they are, leather jackets and all!
 
Back
Top