The content of Yahoo!WebRing's advertising banners and links is solely the product of Yahoo!WebRing and their advertising clients. Yahoo!WebRing's banner advertising is not the product of, endorsed, or approved by The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages (TCCOP) or its webmaster. If you object to Yahoo! WebRing's banner ads, please complain to them.

TCCOP Webmaster
ROCCS RingMaster

The Cults and False Doctrines
Email: Deke













Suggestions for new articles will be appreciated. All submissions for publication on this site will be carefully considered. If your work is accepted, you will be given a lineby-line and you will retain full copyrights to your work.




Return to Index


If you are a Brother or a Sister in Christ Jesus, and not a Mor(m)on, you may find what I am about to write offensive. If you've read this web site's "take no prisoners" ministry statement (accessible from the main page), you know that I am not one to beat around the bush. I am a Calvinist who accepts God's charge to evangelize the world, but there are limitations God has placed upon me, and upon all who follow his command to evangelize. His message is limited to those whom He has granted ears to hear. I am free in Christ to serve Him, and I will teach as He leads me to teach. So, if I my words are abrasive and caustic, charge it to my Puritan ancestry as well as the Bible, for they compel me to defend the faith and God's written and breathed Word, Holy Bible against heretics and detractors.

The following examination of two Mor(m)on doctrines is a highly-edited version of a message I posted to a Christian brother. It is harsh and blunt. Given the salvation theology I hold, I am not concerned if my teachings are offensive to an unbeliever. It's just "tough bananas," chump. God's way has a nasty habit of being VERY offensive because it leaves no gray areas, no "wiggle-room." I offer no apologies for my ministry and accept no demands for an apology, with one exception: if I have caused a weaker brother or sister to sin against their conscience. In that regard, if you are a believer in Christ Jesus and not a Mormon or other unbeliever, and you suspect that adopting my teaching style would violate your conscience, you MUST NOT follow my example. They are for me, and a very few others. You must do as the Holy Spirit leads you. Each of us has his own Spiritual gifts. Mine, as I currently exercise them, occasionally tend to be caustic and sarcastic, so be forewarned.

What follows is a Biblical critique of two Mor(m)on [the second m is optional -- and that IS sarcastic] doctrines, and the standards I hold for what is worthy of examination. The first doctrine will be: I am responsible for my own sins and not for Adam's original transgression. It is one of their Articles of Faith -- the seventh?? -- which Mor(m)on children are forced to memorize. The second will be: As God once was, I some day shall be. It is also Mor(m)on doctrine, but I am not certain of the source. The brother in Christ whom I originally answered thought the source was probably Brigham Young, it may also be from the Pearl of Great Price (value: $0.00), or the Doctrine and Covenants (like we don't already have one?). I haven't wasted my time looking it up. Only the Bible, alone and harmonized in its entirety, is worthy of theological study. My copies are of the Mormon books are almost 50 years old. I admit that I'm curious about how many MORE revisions -- uh -- "revelations" have been "received" to correct the mass of contradictions between the "Book of Mor(m)on" [who cares?], other Mor(m)on doctrines [who cares, again?], and God's only breathed and Written word, the Holy Bible (EVERYONE SHOULD CARE). Speaking of the Book of Mor(m)on, that angel, MORON-I [was Joe Smith sending a message with that name, or not?] was some angel -- Hell's Angel, that is! Maybe Joe Smith (good name for a snake oil salesman) stole those glasses from Peter Fonda? OK, Deke, enough sarcasm! Let's examine these doctrines in the light of Biblical Truth.

The answer to the first Mor(m)on doctrine, "I am responsible for my own sins and not for Adam's original transgression," a denial of original sin, doesn't even require a passage from Scripture, just some basic knowledge of Biblical doctrine. The Mor(m)on doctrine on original sin is false on its very surface. Christ Jesus was without sin, yet He died. ZAP-SHORT-POP! One Mor(m)on false doctrine bites the dust! Except for Christ Jesus who subjected Himself to it, we are all born to the law of sin and death as wicked beings inescapably subject to death even before we leave the birth canal:

Psalm 58:3-5:
3   Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak      lies.

4  Their venom is like the venom of a snake, like that of a cobra that has stopped its     ears,

5  that will not heed the tune of the charmer, however skillful the enchanter may be.     (NIV)

Sin and death stalks each of us from conception. A fetus does not sin, save by existing as a human being conceived in sin and thereby being subject to death. A fetus is not sinner by its own action, but it is nonetheless subject to the law of sin and death (Romans 5) as is the whole of the human race since Adam's disobeyed God. ZAP-SHORT-POP! Mor(m)on false doctrine bites the dust again!

The second Mor(m)on doctrine, "As God once was, I some day shall be" is inescapably heresy. It flies in the face of God's nature. It is the great Satanic self-deception. It is roundly refuted by James 1:17:

17  Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the      Father of lights, with WHOM THERE IS NO VARIATION OR SHADOW OF  TURNING. (NKJ)

Since God doesn't change, Mor(m)ons necessarily think they're going to be God Almighty, whether they deny it or not. That's a ticket on the doctrinal train to perdition if I ever heard of one!

As you have noticed, I detest the Mor(m)on cult. It destroyed my family, driving my parents apart, and leaving me a suffering wretch trapped in familial turmoil. The Mor(m)on "church" is family- oriented? HAAAAH!! I also saw identical decay and destruction in many other Mor(m)on families when I was a child. Most of the hoodlums and perverts in grade and high school were my Mor(m)on classmates. In recent years Moronism destroyed part of my wife's family. In that case, a Mor(m)on "bishop" married a widowed relative of ours, then with full knowledge of the Bishopric, engaged in at least one adulterous affair. He paid his BIG $$$ dues (tithes), and he could "due" as he chose in the eyes of the "church." My widowed relative divorced him, but not before he bled her and his step son of every cent they had received from her late husband. Neither of them was strong enough to recover from his deceit and wickedness. Her son is a broken and utterly worthless man in his mid-thirties. Our relative is a "mental disaster area." I lay that, primarily, at the door of that wicked Mor(m)on "bishop" she married. He will pay in hell for causing their fall, for causing two of Jesus' "little ones" to fall into sin.

I consider one of the greatest achievements of my adult life to be my excommunication from the Mor(m)on "church" for preaching the Gospel of Christ Jesus as He (God) breathed it into the Holy Bible. During my excommunication the arrogant Mor(m)on blasphemers actually ordered me to appear before their tribunal to face apostasy charges! What a laugh! What fools! They are the apostates! I would NOT then, and NEVER will respond to the demands of blind, Satan-serving, accursed, Scripture-perverting, hell-bound heretics. Of their kind it is written:

Rev 22:17-19:
17  The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!"       Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of       the water of life.

18  I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds       anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.

19  And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away       from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this       book. (NIV)

The so-called Book of Mor(m)on is EXACTLY covered by that passage. No matter how they try to lawyer the issue, that book IS an addition to the Bible. I will not associate with Mor(m)ons, or any other heretic unless I detect a broken spirit.

I had ignored the Mor(m)ons for roughly thirty years following my becoming a cult member, openly taught against their heresies, and co-founded a Bible-teaching church. Yet, they paid no attention to me. I guess they figured I had the money to buy my salvation just as my former Mor(m)on "bishop-in-law" and my father did. I've made no secret of my revulsion when Mor(m)onism was raised in discussions, even with Mor(m)ons present. My own father "turned me in" to the Mor(m)ons. I praise Almighty God that he did!

The memory of my excommunication from that wicked cult makes me feel clean and free of a terrible evil. I know that I am no slave to hell-bound heresies, and that I am victorious though Christ Jesus who is Almighty God in the flesh. That is the same Christ Jesus Whom the Mor(m)ons say was a created being, the product of a sexual relationship between the Holy Spirit (Gk. pnuema which means "Spirit," not phantasma which means "ghost") and Mary. They teach that Jesus was not the physical son of God's Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20) or God (Luke 1:35). The Morons and the Moron Church are LIARS and HERETICS. It is written, Christ Jesus speaking, in John 10:30: I and the father are one. Christ Jesus is Almighty God, not some created being. All credit, all cause, all glory is only to Him who saved me, a formerly blind, deaf, miserable slave to sin, and victim of Mor(m)onism.

The Mor(m)on "Church's" grave error about Jesus' physical conception, again, traces directly to their founders' obvious ignorance of Koinean Greek (the Greek used by the 1st Century church). The Greek texts DO NOT indicate any kind, form, concept, or implication of sexual contact between God and Mary. In Luke 1:35 I have seen Mor(m)ons, who claim that they use the KJV, use the English phrase come upon, while the KJV uses overshadow. The Greek word is episkiazo which correctly translates into English as any word meaning to cast a shade upon, or to engulf and surround completely with brilliant radiance. The KJV's overshadow is a valid translation of episkiazo, but the Moron come upon is not because it clearly implies sexual union. That Christ Jesus' body was the product of any form, type, or instance of sexual reproduction is an absolute heresy. The Greek text makes it abundantly clear that Jesus' conception was miraculous and wholly supernatural.

If you are a Bible-believing brother or sister in Christ Jesus, and NOT a Mor(m)on Bible-corrupting heretic, ignore or just chuckle over the next paragraphs, or even rebuke me with a Biblical passage if you can find one that is appropriate. I'm always open to the Written Word of God, to the Holy Bible and to rebukes from my fellow Believers. On the other hand, if you are a Mor(m)on, you might not want to read the following paragraph unless you've taken your blood pressure medication. Mor(m)ons must also understand that I utterly reject all Mor(m)on doctrines and documents as total frauds; I will not discuss them and thereby lend them an appearance of worth.

If you are an angry Mor(m)on after reading of my testimony and my loathing for your corrupt and wicked cult, or if you are insulted by what I have just written, understand that I have published the same thing on many fora over many years, and that I have been teaching Bible for more than 21 years. My position is no secret, and I thank God for corroborating my theological conclusions by allowing me to be introduced to John Calvin's theology. I love my brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. A heretic's anger does not move me to anything more than disgust and nausea. I know heretics are only walking corpses, spiritual "zombies" seeking to draw other victims into their grave. It is written:

Galatians 1:6-9:
6    I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of       Christ unto a different gospel;

7   which is not another (gospel) only there are some that trouble you, and would      pervert the gospel of Christ.

But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other      than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.

As we have said before, so say I now again, if any man preacheth unto you any      gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema. (ASV)

The ravings and accusations of a heretic do not concern me in the least. I can easily defeat them. On the other hand, the heretic's salvation does concern me. So, if you are incensed, don't bother to attempt to "read me off," or to demand a list of names in support of the personal history I provided here. On the other hand, if you would like to understand what God has to offer through the Bible, then ask. I'm always open to NON-RHETORICAL Bible questions from anyone. I will not respond to letters which quote heresy or seek to engage in futile, un-Biblical, or Biblically ignorant arguments -- other than to provide, perhaps, a caustic rebuke supported by Scripture.

Re Submitting questions about this article:

Mine is a Bible-teaching ministry. I will not intentionally reveal the full name of any associated with or mentioned by this ministry, or even real first names on my Prayer Request page unless I'm given permission. I maintain a strict pastor-parishioner confidentiality. I can not be badgered, bullied, cajoled, angered, or emotionally blackmailed into breaching a confidence, even an old one. I have a special file for posts like those. They are rare and, needless to say, they rarely receive a reply. The two exceptions are a broken spirit, and if someone misquotes or "spins" anything I write. In that latter case, and if I deem it necessary, if the "spin" is done on a public forum I will post to my website the full text of my work with appropriate comments and provide a link to it on any forum where the "spin" was posted. I know how to use this medium, and I will defend vigorously, if not viciously, both the Scripture and myself.

It is written in Proverbs 14:12: There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death. (NIV) Mor(m)on doctrine fails the Biblical test. It may seem right, but it is heresy which ends in hell. May God have mercy upon its followers.



If you would like to find out more about the Mor(m)on cult, and others:

J. Dominguez, MD, PhD.


Return to Index

- OR -





Dancing In Response To
Tuesday January 5, 1999 at 15:12

I believe Diakon left because he had been exposed for the fraud that he is. I threatened him that if he didn't leave I would reveal some of the things he had recently attempted to do to me via email. He's a real black sheep with a black agenda, believe me. Unfortunately for him, I have no fear and cannot be blackmailed, as he attempted to do.

In Response To FORUM
Tuesday January 5, 1999 at 18:56

I just now found Dancing's post accusing me of felony blackmail. Here are the pertinent words: [Dancing] In Response To Caligula Tuesday January 5, 1999 at 15:12 "I believe Diakon left because he had been exposed for the fraud that he is. I threatened him that if he didn't leave I would reveal some of the things he had recently attempted to do to me via email. Unfortunately for him, I have no fear and cannot be blackmailed, as he attempted to do."

Since she had made that heinous accusation, she has no expectation of privacy. I will be posting all of our letters, unedited, to my web site for your examination. I will be doing that this evening or tomorrow. ~~Deke






In Response To All
Monday December 28, 1998 at 9:20

Is anyone familiar with the following quotes? "I am responsible for my own sins and not for Adam's original transgression." "As God once was, I some day shall be."

I may have been a little off on those quotes, but they are quite close. I was forced to memorze them about 45 years ago. Comments please, especially where Scripture applies. I'll try to return before the messages scroll off. BRING BACK THE THREADED FORUM!!!

Happy New Year to all! ~~Deke (UNLINKED) Link to my web site, The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages

Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 13:09:35 -0700
Reply-To [From]: "Dancing"
To: tccop@jps.net
Subject: I Saw Your VIP Page on Webforums!

Yes, Deke, I am quite familiar with these phrases. What is it that you are trying to achieve by asking these questions? I assume that you were once LDS by your post that you were also familiar with them, and that you now have disassociated yourself. Am I correct in that assumption? [SIGNED:] Dancing.

Mon Dec 28 20:59:53 1998
To: "Dancing"
From: Diakon
Subject: Re: I Saw Your VIP Page on Webforums!

Hi Dancer!

I am posting a reply to your question on my web site. It is far too long for the Reagan Forum, and it is long overdue. It will present some details of my relationship with the Mormon "church," the effect the church had upon my family and me, and a Biblical examination of those two items I posted. I will post a link to the article on the Reagan God and Religion Forum as soon as I post it to my web site.

May Almighty God bless you with a hunger and an unquenchable thirst for His only Breathed and Written Word, the Holy Bible. Let the whole of His creation know that IT IS ONLY BY GOD'S GRACE AND HIS WORKS AND FAITHFUL SACRIFICE AS CHRIST ON THE CROSS THAT WE ARE SAVED; we can do nothing to save ourselves (Ephesians 2: 8-9). If God through His sovereign will has chosen you as His, your spiritual future is assured into eternity. There is no other way, for His omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence deny any other possibilities.

Thanks for writing, Dancer. Have a Happy New Year. I remain . . . .

Doulos kai diakonos Christou Iesou
(Koine Greek, "A slave and servant [teacher] in Christ Jesus")

From: "Dancing"
To: "Deke"
Subject: Re: I Saw Your VIP Page on Webforums!
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 11:09:35 -0700

Good morning to you Deke,

Thank you for returning my message. Please understand that I am not an anti-Mormon as you now seem to be. I will listen and read your material however. Don't be disappointed if I don't agree with your statement that the Holy Bible is His only written word. I am well studied and have included archaeology as one of my passions. I love the study of religion and of the Bible foremost. However, many recent, within the last 60 years, prove to me that many original books of the Bible have been removed from this precious collection. Some of the passages of that wonderous book have also been altered from time to time making it confusing at times.

There have been wonderful discoveries now authenticated by the Forum of the collective churches who are studying and translating these newly found works. As you indicated, they are too extensive to write about here, but I find them reasonable and exciting additions. -Have you read the Nag Hamadi, the tablets from Cumran, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and others? I think you would find them quite enlightening. I'm sorry that you had a bad experience but be careful before you begin your persecution of another religion. I must warn you that I see good in all churches that are Christian, including the Mormon church. If you then know that and want to continue to converse with me, I am open to that discussion.

You speak of unquentiable thirst. I have that for the scriptures also. I have studied for many, many years and will continue to do so. I also understand the sacrifice that our Savior has made for us and am humbly overwhelmed with this gift to us all. I also understand that we have our part to do. I believe that faith without works will not get us to Heaven. I believe that the 10 commandments are just that, not the 10 suggestions. God expects us to live his word, not just read it. Ok, that's my opinion pretty much in a nutshell. I ask God to direct your work to as to glorify His.

Yours in Christ,

From: Diakon
To: Dancing
Date: Tuesday, December 29, 1998 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: I Saw Your VIP Page on Webforums!

Hi again, Dancing

In my haste (which is still going on), I neglected to reply to one of your statements about Bibilcal accuracy. Are you aware that in the Scriptoria, the scribes used an algorythm very similar to the checksum algorythm which checks and verifies the accuracy of your posts to the Reagan Forum? Simply, if the sum of the digits making up the alpha-values of any passage did not match the sums from the original text, the copies were re-written or destroyed. The claim that the Bible has been altered is utter hogwash. That is verified by the agreement of our OT with the Qumran scrolls. Isn't it amazing that God preserved His word so well over the millennia!

Faith without works is the product of the reprobate. Only God's chosen people have faith and works of value (Hebrews 6), the others can not be "renewed to repentance." Works are worthless without faith, and true faith is only possible though God's grace. The carnal mind is his enemy (Romans 8). He who endures to the end shall be saved, but not by works. God alone has made the decision whom He will save, and whom He will condemn. His faithful MUST produce good works and endure, because if they did othewise, God would not be omniscient or omnipresent.

God bless, and Happy New Year

From: "Dancing"
To: "Diakon"
Subject: Re: I Saw Your VIP Page on Webforums!
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 19:45:17 -0700

Hi Deke,

This time we seem to agree more on scriptural interpretation. I appreciate your views although I may not always agree with them. I hope your determination to steamrole over the Mormon church will not cause a serious and incurable rift between us. I respect your views and only ask that you respect mine even if you don't agree with me. I understand that the new finds must be read with the spirit's interpretations and that many of them are far off base. I believe, however, that some verify that things have been removed from the Bible. Have you studied Will and Ariel Durrants works? I suggest that, if you have not, you find the time to do so. They are non-denominational and are brilliant historical documents. I found them quite enlightening.

Because of my heritage and because of my long time association with various Indian tribes in America, I do find that there are evidences of Christ visiting America in their cultures. It astonished me at first and I have researched some of these also. You may find them fascinating, but they may not support your theory. I have an attachment to the Apache tribe in New Mexico. My Apache name ends with Dancing, which I now use on the internet as a code name. My father spend a great deal of his life with the Indians as a teacher and as a friend. I find them to be wonderful and beautiful people. I know I cannot convince you of any of this. That's okay by me. I shall not try to. Again, I will listen and if you want, I will share my experiences with you and the information I have uncovered in my many years of research. Nevertheless, again, I respect where you are and what you are.

Yours in Christ,

Wed Dec 30 01:35:26 1998
To: "Dancing"
From: Diakon
Re: I Saw Your VIP Page on Webforums!

Hi "Dancing"!

As Ken Hamblin would put it, if a bit crudely, "It's BOHICA time!" I love Brother Ken's way with words! It is not my intent to steamroller the Mor(m)on church. It is my fervent prayer that God will permit me to have a hand exposing its fraud and in His destruction of it for the sake of those it would deceive and send to hell unless it is stopped. In wars there are casualties. If you decided to cease communicating to me, and may God grant that you don't, I accept the loss. Just remember, I am always ready to hear from you.

This is blunt if not harsh, but it must be so. I would be dishonest if I did not say it. If your views support heresy, I have zero respect for them and will work tirelessly to expose any false doctrine you teach. God requires that of me. There is only one truth, one way, and one light in the world. The rest is darkness. I trust God's breathed word, The Holy Bible, and regard as absolutely intractable enemies those who seek to degrade, damage, demean, or negate any part of it. I detest liberal "theology," it is nothing more than blasphemy and heresy parading as intellectual curiosity. It leads people to utterly ignorant attempts at reconciling evil and good. From that wickedness has sprung one of my chief enemies, "Theistic Evolutionism," an atheist fraud based on pseudoscience, which is best described by Jesus Matthew 7:15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." (NIV) God allowed the first three decades of my life to be spent in Evolutionarian basic training, only to turn me into its and Theistic Evolutionism's most ardent enemies. Thank you Teilhard de Chardin for your little book. Enjoy your toe-dance on the fires of hell compliments of your illegitimate co-child, Eoanthropus dawsonii.

The enemies of God include the atheists Will and Ariel Durant. Of course they are non-denominational, all atheists are non-denominational! I own some of Will Durant's philosophy texts, but have none of his and her religious historical commentaries. His atheist bias in those philosophy texts is palpable, and his motives are poorly disguised. The Durant's historical works have their opponents who regard them as highly stylized fluff. I have no doubt that they also have an atheist bias no different from his philosophical works. I prefer Francis Schaeffer's writings, as well as the theology of John Calvin, albeit I probably will not totally agree with either, and have much more to learn from both. Schaeffer and Calvin were Biblical Christians, and have gone home to be with the LORD. Durant is a dead atheist who is at this moment realizing the price of his wickedness. Atheists have nothing for me, they serve hell and its master.

I mentioned the Pseudepigraphica in my earlier note. They were not really removed from the Bible. They were never part of it to begin with. They were rejected for many reasons, among them that they taught un-Biblical doctrine. One of those "books," ascribed to the apostle Peter is not in his style, and promotes a works doctrine. Another example from that series is the _Letters of Herod and Pilate_. The "letter" which purports to document Pilate's death has him committing suicide with a dagger in Rome. It says he was bound with stones and thrown into the Tiber. The Romans were supposed to have recovered his body, taken it to Vienne, and sunk it in the Rhone. That is utter garbage. Pontius Pilate's tomb has recently been found is Caesarea. It is no wonder that those "books" were rejected. They were as Biblical as Isaac Asimov's fiction. They are generally regarded as the popular fiction of their day.

If you are referring to the Nag Hamadi books, the ones used as kindling, there was no loss to truth. Those books were the product of gnostic heretics, so- called Coptic "Christians." They are hardly of Biblical stature. Their only value is as archaeological artifacts. Their spiritual value is less than zero. If however, it happens that some arrogant prelate decided to remove from the Bible Scripture which is truly God-breathed (2Timothy 3:16), his place in hell will be especially miserable, while we who trust in God's Holy Spirit and the truth He reveals in His Scripture will not be accountable for what was wickedly taken from us.

I am aware of some American Indian legends about the Great Canoe. I have held since childhood that the Aztec's feathered serpent was a Viking Dragon Ship (my ancestors). I have had several American Indian friends. One of my favorite people in high school was Pomo. Sadly, Sam was killed in a climbing accident on the reservation. I will never forget him. My wife is probably 1/8 Cherokee or Chickasaw, but we are still doing the research. So, I would be interested in hearing about the evidence you have for Christ in the Americas. Is it artifacts, legends, or from tribal religions? If the first, I would be very interested. If the second or third, there are theological objections, but I am still interested.

Now that I think of it, do you ever remember writing to one "Willie the Wildman" on the old Threaded Forum? I think we have written before. Were you "Tah" in those not-too-bygone days?

Please try to understand that what I teach is not theory insofar as it does not enter the area of creationism; that is a different ball game. It is backed by archaeological fact, and historical fact. It is supported with eyewitness evidence which is testable, quantifiable, and verifiable. It is not just another theory for one very inescapable reason. I, a Calvinist, not a Pentecostal, have personally witnessed God's power, as granted through the Holy Bible, heal dread disease. That is not dread disease declared by some "hocus pocus" gibberish-shouting preacher, but incurable dread disease which I personally witnessed being medically diagnosed, witnessed being healed, and witnessed the healing confirmed by the same Kaiser Hospital medical doctor who diagnosed it. I have seen these healings diagnosed and verified more than once. They are fact, not theory.

I am falling behind on my e-mail. I give special priority to new correspondents, to prayer requests, and to counseling requests. The latter two are at the core of my ministry. I am very interested in the research you have done, and the conclusions you have drawn from it. I may be late in answering your upcoming posts, but be assured, you are not being ignored. I'm just behind on my e-mail, as usual. Some times I am behind as much as a month, but usually not more than two weeks.

Finally, I would like to close by pointing out that God did not limit His influence solely to the Jews in ancient times, nor has he limited his influence solely to Christians in modern times. It is written:

Romans 1:20: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-- his eternal power and divine nature-- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (NIV)

God reaches out to every living human. Most can not hear Him. Some mistake His message as did the Ancient Greeks and Romans. Others even taste of His promise, but reject it. They are the heretics, the agnostics, the deists, and the cultists. The remnant are His chosen people. Many are called, few are chosen.

Doulos kai diakonos Christou Iesou
(Koine Greek: "A slave and servant in Christ Jesus)

From: "Dancing"
To: "Deke"
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 13:20:01 -0700

Dear Deke,

I appreciate your message from yesterday. Sorry I didn't get it answered. I was at home nurturing a cold so that I could be up and at 'um today for New Year's Eve. And by the way, let me wish you a Happy New Years and a wonderful 1999.

You must understand one thing about me, maybe two. First, I am Mormon and I love this church and what it teaches. Second, I have no intention of not communicating with you because of you views. I will count you among my friends as long as we can treat each other with mutual respect. I promise not to beat on you because of your views, you must do the same for me. That doesn't mean we can't discuss the issues. I will enjoy doing that. I will not try to convince you that I am right and you are wrong.

We may have communicated before, but I have always been Dancing in the chat rooms. I haven't spend any time there for a couple of months because of the bombastic nature of the posts. I can't abide swearing and petty stuff, therefore I wasn't well accepted by most of the people there. They were mostly kids with something to prove. Sometimes I thought I was helping someone from time to time, but for the most part I just got blasted with cursing.

I find this forum a much better place to be. There are people who are more of my age group, but well diversified. I am a grandmother, age 54, a businesswoman, well educated. Most of that education has come from just living and continuing to try to learn anything I can.

From something you wrote earlier, either on the forum or in an email, did I see that you were once a member of the Mormon church? Apparently, if you were, you had some problems with it. Can you tell me what it was? I would be glad to listen. You sound a little bitter about the Mormon church and about life in general. Am I reading you correctly?

I'm sorry you didn't like the Durrants writings. I don't own any of the philosophical writings, just the history. It is well documented and well accepted. I didn't understand that they were Aetheists. How did you decide this? I certainly am anything but aetheist, believe me. I do, however, have great sympathy for those who are. However, I have found that people will be what they will be no matter what I try to persuade them to see. I can still be myself and do what I want to do regardless. I have my free agency, they have theirs. I can read and study for myself and sift through, pulling out what I believe is truth and working with the Holy Spirit as my guide.

I can see that we have much to discuss. This could prove quite interesting as I am sure that our views will differ in some areas and agree in others.

Until then, may our God bless and protect you.

Thu Dec 31 23:02:22 1998
To: "Dancing"
From: Diakon

Hi "Dancing"!

No need to be sorry for being late. LATE!? HAH! I'm usually two weeks and more behind on my e-mail. Things slowed down during the Christmas Season, so I'm writing this one on time. Next time, well, don't be surprised if you don't hear from me for at least five days. That's the norm. It can be embarrassing, but there's not much I can do about it.

I pray that your cold is mild and short-lived. I was nailed with some kind of bug six or eight weeks ago. It hung on for almost three weeks. The malady is gone but the misery lingers on. My poor sinuses have yet to recover.

I understand what you are saying about not beating on each other's beliefs. The problem for me is that I have a God-given duty as a Bible teacher of more than 21 years to oppose false gospels and un-Biblical doctrines. So long as any LDS does not engage in any way promoting their faith, I have no problem. Saying "I'm LDS" won't get much of a response from me, at the most it would be a simple statement that both the Scripture and I oppose LDS doctrine and practice on Biblical grounds. On the other hand, if a discussion of theology ensues, my first volley will be nuclear. In that case I won't play fair or gently. I regard any forum as a pulpit when I participate, and do frequently use the fora for that purpose. The Bible clearly teaches that souls are at stake, and any public forum is a souls "auction." As a teacher (diakonos) in His church and a member of none, I am much more accountable than the laity before God for not giving immediate and no-quarter opposition to un-Biblical or heretical theologies. I have knowledge and understanding of His Word, and I am required to defend and spread it. I have no choice but to act, regardless of the consequences, when faced with opposing theology. When I do act in that manner, however, the attack is directed at the theology and not at the person expressing it unless there is a personal attack. Most people can not separate their theologically-based beliefs from themselves, so they take my "surgical nuclear strike" as a personal attack. My caustic response to that position is usually something like, "Tough bananas! If you can't stand the heat, you know what to do."

You probably gathered from what I wrote in the previous paragraphs that my opposition to LDS doctrine is far more than bitterness. I have very good reason to be bitter, but infinitely greater theological reasons to oppose LDS doctrine. I will put a link to a brief outline of my experiences with the LDS at the end of this letter. It details why I rejected LDS doctrines and theology as a teenager, my experiences with it as an adult, and my Biblically-based attitude and response to those LDS who accused me. After reading it, you may change your mind about writing to me, but I hope not. I would be dishonest, though, if I did not direct your attention to that page.

I have often said that God has chosen His elect from among all walks of life. I wouldn't ever say that there are none in the LDS, but I would say without equivocation that the probabilities are much lower there than in the churches given LDS doctrine, a small part of which is addressed on the web page URL, below.

I have mentioned before that I am Calvinist. If you are familiar with John Calvin's five-points (TULIP), you may have a better understanding of my theology (I developed it and then discovered that I am Calvinist), and why I engage the opposition as I do. Calvinists, the original Pilgrim Puritans who are part of my direct lineage, were hell fire and brimstone preachers. Some of them went "off the deep end." The result was the Salem Witch Trials. It was the efforts and legalistic mind of a very famous Calvinist, Cotton Mather, and later on his son Increase Mather, that put an end to those trials by proving the absurdity of "spectral evidence." Today, far too many Calvinists are busy debating the minutia of theology instead of spreading the Gospel. On the other hand, there is a very small minority called "Hyper-Calvinists" who refuse to evangelize for fear of thwarting God's will, hence my reply to that cat-call on Wednesday evening's forum. I do evangelize. I find "hyper- Calvinism" absurd on its face. No one can thwart what God has ordained. Endless debate of theological minutia is the worst that can be said of us, and is a common criticism within the ranks of Calvinists.

You've experienced the reality of the web, too? People of faith are some kind of bottom-feeder in the eyes of the modern non-thinkers. That's the result of almost 52 years' anti-Christ government education (read "atheist / Evolutionarian [my name for their religion] brainwashing.") Anyone of faith had best have a kevlar profanity-proof flak jacket if they plan to survive on the Internet and the WWW. Profanity doesn't bother me, but I'm glad to see the Webmonster giving the swift kick out the door to foul-mouths on the new Reagan forum. Actually, there is only one profane declaration that Scripture forbids, and I won't write it. The rest of the four-letter-word lexicon is to be avoided according to Scripture, but it is not forbidden. So, I simply ignore the foul-mouths unless they cross the line of blasphemy. Then it's nuke time. Still, if offensive language bothers you, then you are better off avoiding it. Never engage with anything that offends your conscience. If it offends your conscience, in that area you are not free. I took a short-lived barrage the other night for pointing that principle.

It looks like we haven't met on the web before the new fora emerged. The woman I was referring to was a regular on the old Reagan "Debate Religion and its Place in Politics" forum as well as on the now-defunct "Threaded Forum" which replaced it, into the first month or two of 98. Speaking of the Threaded Forum, would you do me (us) a favor? Write to Mike Reagan and request that he restore the Threaded Forum format, but with the restrictions that are currently in place. Messages remained as long as a week or more in that format, and they were easy to locate. It would be great if he would open the forum to read-only access for non-VIP's, but that might be a bit much to ask. At the least, it would encourage more people to apply for VIP's. Right now, newbies may be resistant to revealing their e-mail address when they don't know what is available. I have requested the changes we now have many times over the past 16 months, and suggested the threaded forum's BBS-style format a week before it was started. If Mike took that suggestion, maybe can encourage him to give it some thought if we swamp him with requests. So, pass the suggestion along to others you know from the forum. Maybe we can put together a conspiracy and get what we need!

Thanks for writing, "Dancing". Get well fast, and have a very Happy New Year.

Doulos kai diakonos Christou Iesou
(Koine Greek: "A slave and servant in Christ Jesus)



From: "Dancing"
To: "Diakon"
Subject: Re:
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 16:44:35 -0700

Hi Deke,

Thanks for writing back so soon. I took a couple of days off for New Years and to try to recover from my cold. It comes and goes, depending on whether or not I stay indoors and mind my peas and cues. I have a very hard time doing that. Obviously, cause I'm at work right now and will be here for awhile getting some paperwork done.

I appreciate where you're coming from. I don't think that all Mormons are perfect. Far from it. We suffer from the same things and temptations anyone else does. I'm sorry your family has had so many difficulties from unscrupulous members of this church. We do not lack for them I know. I have my own bouts.


That doesn't mean I lived a perfect life, Deke. I just had my own reasons for sticking with the church which someday at a later time I may try to explain to you. I did become inactive for awhile and did some serious searching of other religions and ideas.

This I do understand because of many of my own experiences. Just being a Mormon doesn't make you perfect. There are many members who are awful. I've encountered by share of them. It was because of those experiences that I quit going for awhile. But I realized that just because some of the people were flawed, that didn't mean the church was. You may think I came to this decision lightly. I didn't. I struggled more than you can imagine. When I came back I fully expected to be excommunicated too.

But know this, I studied and studied both the Mormon religion and other ideas and phliosophies. I studied the Bible intensely. I studied the Book of Mormon intensely. I prayed continually. I got my answer, not from man but from God in a way I cannot describe because of the very nature of it, but I got my answer. There were things that I heard people teach in the church that I couldn't listen to. I knew they were false. That was one of the biggest hurdles for me. As I studied, I found out for myself that they were false. These teachers were misinformed and noone had been in the classrooms to catch what they were saying.

On two separate occasions, years apart, the Gospel Doctrine teacher ridiculed the Catholic church. I was so upset that I cryed, got up and stomped out. Both times, I now understand that they were wrong to do this. I have never been able to listen to another church or it's people be badmouthed. I will not listen to it still. It goes against my grain so severly you cannot imagine.

Now, my dear friend, there are many things you have written in your pages. I see the anger and hurt in you and I do understand it. I don't have to agree with you to be empathetic. And I do disagree with much of what you wrote. But I am not offended by you or your words. Yes, you can be bombastic and caustic, sounds like you're proud of it. It doesn't matter to me.I've had more heat than you can ever think to dish out. But what you deliver you must also be willing to receive. I'm perhaps of a more gentle nature than you, but am iron of will. I'm hard to offend but will fight to the death for what I believe in. Now, if you really want to take all of that on, I'm in. I believe this, that we are all God's children. As He loves us, I love. As you look upon my as a poor lost soul, I look upon you as my brother whom I know God loves. I don't think for one minute that because I am Mormon I am better than anyone else. I don't think for one minute that because I am Mormon that anyone else is better than me.

OK? Ground rules set.

Are you in?


Sun Jan 03 11:57:37 1999
To: "Dancing"
From: Diakon Subject: Lola and other things

Hi "Dancing"

I remember "What Ever Lola Wants Lola Gets." It's from the stage play turned late 1950's movie, "Damn Yankees." I've met more than my share of "Lolas," and seen many men make fools of themselves with those women, even in the churches.

I have witnessed many evils in the churches, not just the LDS. It is the reason that I no longer serve in the church I co-founded. It is also the reason that I have been engaged in my "cyber evangelism" ministry since 1991, and have run several "electronic churches" since mid-1994. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, I coined the term "electronic church." The "conventional" churches, at least every one I have ever encountered, are a mess. The leadership runs from their responsibility, and ignores deceit and wrongdoing in the leadership and /or in the congregation, thus making "pacts with the Devil." I have counseled professional ministers and laity over the years, and have even advised several to leave the church they were attending or serving. A church which supports corruption is not for anyone who names Christ as Savior, which, by the way, is the one thing that is a thin thread of hope, a possibility of salvation LDS whom God may have chosen.

I have been counseling several women who are living in or who have left circumstances quite similar to what you have experienced. One is my age. Sadly, she came to me too late and now the "bread" she "cast upon the water" is returning. It looks to be moldy. The last two of her children are slipping away into common evil, and she is weakly opposing their decisions. The Lord, however, has given her peace amid the turmoil. She is able to accept what she can not change, and is working hard to change those things she can, standing firm for righteous principles. It's tough to come to grips with a lifetime of failure, of seeing your children become worthless drug addicts and a prostitute, but God is merciful. May He grant that her children awaken to their foolishness before they, too, are lost. It is written of mankind:

Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (KJV)

Psalms 58:3 "Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies." (NIV)

My excommunication: When I wrote my thesis to the false prophets and laughed at their demand to appear before their rubber-stamp kangaroo court (I saw many of them in the ward I attended), they replied calling it a "rant" even though every single word I wrote was supported by Bible doctrine. I laid bare several LDS false doctrines from Almighty God's breathed Biblical perspective, and I was not a bit surprised that they were wholly ignorant of that doctrine even though on occasion the bishops, elders, and missionaries had brandished KJV's when I was a teenager. Many years had passed since they came to parent's home, and I had gained the beginnings of a working acquaintance with Koinean Greek and was struggling with Hebrew. That knowledge further solidified my position, and separated me even further from the LDS because I hold that the KJV is a partially superstition-ridden (e.g. the "unicorn" superstition in Numbers 23:22; 24:8: Job 39:9 10; Psalms 29:6; and 92:10), Roman Catholicism infected (less obvious) translation. I hold that most who oppose the NIV, NKVJ, and ASV are manipulators who can easily twist (perform exegetical license upon) the KJV's original meanings, although some simply prefer Elizabethan English. I now rely heavily on the Nestlé Greek texts. I am totally confident in their validity, authority, and my understanding.

I am a 21 year veteran Bible teacher, as I have said before. The Biblical exegeses which I used on my web "Is It Biblical" page are Biblically valid, unambiguous, and fully applicable to the LDS doctrines I addressed. I actually "took it easy" with that thesis because I did not want to deeply offend Bible-believing Christians, but edify them as I am instructed to do. So, you must understand that you are not disagreeing with me about LDS doctrine, you are disagreeing with God's only breathed (inspired) written Word, the Holy Bible. That is not a negotiable for me. I can prove to you that the Bible is His only breathed Word beyond a shadow of doubt, but only if God has chosen and elected you. If He has not, nothing I can write will alter your destiny. That is the basis of the close of this letter. What I teach is not my interpretation of the facts or just my opinion (I reserve opinion for politics), they are the facts as God has breathed them:

2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (NIV)

It is my duty to teach Scripture, and to "rightly divide" it. Hence, claims to authority not allowed with crystal-clarity in Scripture is cannon fodder for me because I do understand Bible doctrine. E.g.: multiple "sealings" when there are no marriages in heaven, rune- covered underwear (idolatry), claims that Christ was the archangel Michael (heresy), and extra-Biblical revelation (the LDS books), are all anathema.

John 10:30, 38(b) 30 "I and the Father are one."
38 " . . . . that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." (NIV)

When these passages are harmonized, there can be no doubt whatever that Jesus said that He is God. That is totally in contradiction to LDS doctrine. It is the FIRST reason that I teach that LDS doctrine heresy, and the reason that I will not discuss LDS doctrine any other terms. I have a great deal more unambiguous, supportive Scripture, but these alone are sufficient and not in need of any exegesis beyond what I have just presented. The deadliness of un-Biblical doctrine is clear:

Proverbs 14:12 "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." (NKJ)

As to extra-Biblical revelation, and I don't just include the LDS and personal revelations from spirits in this, it is commanded to "test the spirits" in 1John 4:1-5. It is also written:

I John 4:2-3:
2 "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus     Christ has come in the flesh is from God,"

3 "but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the     antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world." (NIV)

2 Corinthians 11:14: "And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light." (NIV)

Extra-Biblical revelation, and personal revelation from disembodied voices or bright angels bringing messages of comfort and assurance, as came to an old friend's wife whose marijuana-soaked life is a disaster, are to be questioned, and distrusted. Only if the message is consistent with the Bible should it be accepted. I warned her about that apparition, but she rejected the Bible in favor of a priest's Bible- ignorant support. The Holy Bible is the only standard for testing "the spirits."

If we are going to discuss the Scriptures from the Holy Bible, you must accept my position as a teacher and the Biblical proscriptions which surround that calling, or there is no value in continuing. I reserve debate for the Internet forums. I am forbidden to allow a woman to teach when I am teaching in the congregation. That includes the two of us:

Matthew 18:20 "For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them." (NKJ)

That is not my choice, it is my duty. It is written:

1 Timothy 2:11-12:
11   "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
12   "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."       (NIV)

You must accept that in things Biblical that I am the teacher. I will not "lord it over you," but I will not treat you an equal. I am a Bible teacher, you are not; if you err, you will be corrected.In teaching we are not equals and never can be because, in God's wisdom, you are a woman. In fact, my position here also extends to men unless they are also "diakonos," and have proven that to my satisfaction. I do, however, accept Biblical questions from both men and women, because answering them is part of my teaching ministry. It is a circumstance unique to this medium. However, in a physical congregation, were I to ever found another, only men would be allowed to teach.

In this e-mail portion of my ministry I am not interested in debate, most especially about heresies of any kind. This portion of my time is dedicated to Biblical counseling and teaching, and I don't have enough precious time to engage in debate. This ministry frequently absorbs 14 hours of my day, and as much as 18, so my time is precious.

Since my time is limited, and I do appreciate your candor, I am not going to "mince words" (as if I ever do). Nevertheless, I will not respond well if you "dish it out" to me, although you most certainly are welcome to pose difficult Biblical questions. If you do "dish it out," I will summarily cease replying. Those are my rules. They are non-negotiable, but are not inflexible.

Also, please keep in mind that you have received an unusual number of closely spaced replies from me. My e-mail volume decreased during the Christmas season, but I expect to return shortly to the usual two- weeks behind pattern, with an emphasis on my central ministry, "practical application of Scripture" counseling and prayer requests. Most of the time I start my very late letters with "Late again. . . . " or, "Do I really have to say it?"

In all candor (I think you know this) my sole purpose in writing to you would be to teach you Biblical principle and Bible doctrine and principles, something of which the LDS are all but universally ignorant (one LDS wrote to me a while back that the Old Testament said such- and-such in the original Greek), and therefore are easily misled. There is absolutely no way that I will ever turn from my duty to teach the Bible alone, or shirk my duty to edify His elect. My Boss wouldn't appreciate it.

Doulos kai diakonos Christou Iesou

From: "Dancing"
To: "Diakon"
Subject: Re: Lola and other things
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 14:30:24 -0700

Dear Deke,

Thanks for writting back so soon. I do like to read your posts, but you are going to have to understand one thing from me. As far as you knowing more that I do, I sincerely doubt it. I also have much that I could teach you. As far as "I have to listen to you because you are a man and I'm a woman, forget it. Boy are you tweeking my inermost " woman is equal to man" feelings. I am equal to you in every way and if you cannot accept that there is no reason to go further. I also teach religion in my church and will continue to do so. I'm quite knowledgable about the scripture. I do accept the King James version because historically it has been proven to be the most correctly translated version we have. Therefore, I read and study it only. I wondered where you got your versions from, because they are foreign to me.

As far as Psalms goes, it was the poetic writings of David, a man convicted of high crimes by his God and lamenting, not the words of a prophet. I accept them only as such. We have vastly different views of what the scriptures say and I believe that my interpretations are correct, just as you view yours as correct. That's a fact you will have to live with if you want to converse with me. If your only purpose is getting me to leave my church, you are indeed wasting your time. I'm am as Mormon as they come. I believe in my church, I love my church and what it teaches. I accept and understand the fact that there are many in the church who have problems and are not perfect. I have had my problems too. I also understand too that Christ came to save not the perfect, because they don't need saving, but to save people like me who are reaching toward perfection but fall short. I don't believe that babies can sin. In fact, every thing in me rejects that as ridiculous. Sometimes you just have to use your head ol' man! I have a brand new little baby grandson who is precious as they come. There is no way this little package of joy can have any thoughts of sin, or any thoughts at all other than getting loved, getting his belly fully, keeping his diaper changed and being warm and safe. Any other thought defies reason.

As far as this church claiming the Michael the Archangel is Christ, you are way off base. I can see that you don't understand LDS Doctrine. I did see this claim in one of the chat rooms I was in and I almost turned upside down. How can you purport such a claim when you know that has to be false? Adam in the flesh was Michael the Archangel, Adam being the first man God placed here in the Garden of Eden. That is a widely taught principle in the LDS church. If you don't know that you don't know much of what the church teaches. How preposturous your claims are. It is no wonder that I heard so much dribble [sic] in the chat rooms. You've been there filling them all full of nonsense. Repent of your ways. If you're going to refute the church, then do it with facts, not fiction and lies. See if you can gain any ground with them then.

NOTE: The preceding charges were blatant LIES. First, I regularly participated ONLY in the Michael Reagan forums. I only very rarely posted to Ken Hamblin's forum, and had not posted there for many months. Second, I never mentioned any version of that wicked Mor(m)on doctrine, right or wrong, on any forum. It is my policy not to give an enemy public exposure unless it is necessary.

As far as our claiming that Jesus was not God, where did you get that from? Strange doctrine you profess to know all about. LDS doctrine teaches from the Bible that Jesus indeed was the God of the old Testiment and that he is the very Son of the Father we talk about personified in the flesh, come here on earth to save us from our sins. And the Father was and is the Father just as the scriptures testify to. And Jesus was and is the Son, the only begotten in the flesh. Now, just how in the world can you twist that into anything else? Accept scripture as it is written and quit trying to put your own spin on it. You have gone far to confuse yourself and you also seek to confuse others.


The deadliness of unBiblical Doctrine is certainly clear. You will proclaim your own death if you don't read it for what it is. Spiritual death is the worst form of death there is. My dear man, you have good intentions, I don't doubt that. But awake now, throw off your old bonds of hate and revenge. I don't care if you come back to the church, but quit deceiving yourself. You have more intelligence than that. If you want to refute other doctrine, okay. But you are picking on the things that easily can be tossed out. Corinthians, yes, we agree there. Satan is clever, but the Bible tells us how to discern who is the real Angel and who is the imposter. Read it and find it for yourself and be not deceived, Deke. Basically, Deke, if you take the position you do about wanting to be the Lord and Master of the conversation, we are at am impass. That treats me as a brainless idiot, which I am not and insults me beyond your wildest imagination. I am well studied and well versed and will not accept your herratical rantings as teaching me anything. I told you what my terms were. This can be a discussion. I do not accept you as my superior, period. Now, the balls in your court. If this is wasting your time, it is certainly wasting mine.

Christ is my savior, not you.I hope you understand this and if you decide not to reply, I will not have ill feelings. It, however, will be your loss, trust me.

Your sister in Christ,

Mon Jan 04 13:19:39 1999
To: "Dancing"
From: Diakon
Subject: Re: Lola and other things

Hi "Dancing",

There is nothing more than I can say to you. God says you are not equal. I accept His word, not yours. You are not teachable, and I do not have time for this.


From: "Dancing"
To: "Deke"
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 17:20:02 -0700

Works for me Deke. I'm not into getting dictated to. Have a nice day and a nice life. When you get over being a control freak and feel like you can learn something, I'.ll be glad to correspond. [SIGNED:]"Dancing"

Mon Jan 04 16:05:36 1999
To: "Dancing"
From: Diakon
Subject: Re:

Oh, I forgot. Just so you don't sound quite so "bright" the next time you post illiteracies to someone else, the correct spelling from your earliest post of today is "driVel" not "dribble." "Drivel" is chatter or nonsense. Dribble is what Morons do when the read the liar, criminal and confidence artist Joe Smith's garbage.

From: "Dancing"
To: "Diakon"
Subject: Re:
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 20:13:22 -0700

Sorry you feel that way. Life's like that. I'm not into being controlled by anyone for any reason. Did you feel insulted? Well, so do I and you handed it out first. Remember from my earlier post that I laid out my ground rules which you, by the way, accepted. Remember, what you give out you must also be able to take. You lied when you indicated that you could ol' man. I'm sorry that you are such a bad sport. You won't go far with that attitude. As far as posting my email on the web you will help me turn people from your misinformation and that will be only good. Have a nice day.



In Response To Caligula
Tuesday January 5, 1999 at 15:34

I'm sure there was more rucus than what I saw. I came in late. But no, I don't think it had anything to do with Mountainman. Diakon is new to this forum and short lived if I have anything to do about it. He is definitely not MM.

Dancing In Response To Caligula Tuesday January 5, 1999 at 15:12

I believe Diakon left because he had been exposed for the fraud that he is. I threatened him that if he didn't leave I would reveal some of the things he had recently attempted to do to me via email. He's a real black sheep with a black agenda, believe me. Unfortunately for him, I have no fear and cannot be blackmailed, as he attempted to do.


In Response To Caligula
Tuesday January 5, 1999 at 15:20

Actually no and because I respect the privacy of emails I won't reveal it unless he comes back in here and tries his crap again. There are to many wonderful Christian grannies that I will do my best to keep from winding up in his web. It looks like Now may already have had some bad encounters with him as well. I've saved his messages and mine and will keep them for that purpose. I think he thought he was dealing with a sheep in woman's clothing. I'm anything but a sheep, and he found that out rather quickly.


In Response To Forum
Tuesday January 5, 1999 at 18:04

FYI, I have been posting to the Reagan forums since August, 1997. ~~Deke

In Response To Dancing
Tuesday January 5, 1999 at 18:08

Post anything that I have written to you. Just remember that IF you do any "selective editing," I will post the ENTIRE content of both of our correspondences to my web site. Go for it Mor(m)on heretic! Note: the second m is optional. ~~Deke

In Response To (song and) Dancing
Tuesday January 5, 1999 at 18:14

That invitation includes the 16KB refutation of your heretical drivel (not as you spelled it dribble) which I posted to you about two minutes ago following your ignorant tirade.

In Response To FORUM
Tuesday January 5, 1999 at 18:56

I just now found Dancing's post accusing me of felony blackmail. Here are the pertinent words: [Dancing] In Response To Caligula Tuesday January 5, 1999 at 15:12 "I believe Diakon left because he had been exposed for the fraud that he is. I threatened him that if he didn't leave I would reveal some of the things he had recently attempted to do to me via email. Unfortunately for him, I have no fear and cannot be blackmailed, as he attempted to do."

Since she had made that heinous accusation, she has no expectation of privacy. I will be posting all of our letters, unedited, to my web site for your examination. I will be doing that this evening or tomorrow. ~~Deke


From Diakon
Tue Jan 05 05:57:01 1999
To: "Dancing" From: Diakon

Don't be sorry, but praise Almighty God for the unmerited (free gift) of salvation I have received through the all-sufficient sacrifice of His Holy Sprit- begotten Son, Christ Jesus. No effort on my part was required, no rules, no regulations, no approval from anyone save for Almighty Sovereign Holy God. His grace is sufficient (do you recognize those words?) Know that you can not insult me, I serve God; the insults you think you have cast at me are aimed at Him. In attempting to wound the servant, you have attacked the Master. Your opinion of me is unimportant and wholly irrelevant. That you would make such an assumption exposes your colossal ignorance. Only your soul is of any lasting import; I fear that it is lost.

I had begun to believe that I'd never encounter a curmudgeon close to my hard-earned position in "curmudgeondom." You have disabused me of that notion. You're pretty good at curmudgeoning; too bad it is wasted on heresy. I'm just better at it than you are -- I've had more years to practice the art.

You distort (read "lie" about my posts). I did not accept your "ground rules." I keep every letter I post and receive. In the post of 1-3-99, "re: Lola and other things," the reply post containing your "ground rules," the closest I EVER came to agreeing with you was in my closing paragraph:

"In all candor (I think you know this) my sole purpose in writing to you would be to teach you Biblical principle and Bible doctrine and principles, something of which the LDS are all but universally ignorant (one LDS wrote to me a while back that the Old Testament said such- and-such in the original Greek), and therefore are easily misled. There is absolutely no way that I will ever turn from my duty to teach the Bible alone, or shirk my duty to edify His elect. My Boss wouldn't appreciate it".

BUT you obviously didn't read one of the previous paragraphs, or failed to grasp its simple message. I wrote:

"If we are going to discuss the Scriptures from the Holy Bible, you must accept my position as a teacher and the Biblical proscriptions which surround that calling, OR THERE IS NO VALUE IN CONTINUING (emphasis added). I reserve debate for the Internet forums. I am forbidden to allow a woman to teach when I am teaching in the congregation. (I provided corroborative Scripture) That includes the two of us:"

That paragraph precluded any possibility of my accepting your "ground rules." Learn to read. Those two paragraphs, and all of the others, presented no agreement at all with your "ground rules." The entire post reiterated with honesty my only intent, and my irreversible position re my ministry.

I have never posted a lie to you, but I did make a mistake. From the outset you knew what my ministry is about: teaching the Bible. You know that I can not be emotionally blackmailed into discussing heretical doctrines (beyond debunking them.) My ministry has never been presented otherwise. I made it unambiguously clear that I do not engage heresies or heretics [e.g. Mor(m)ons and the Mor(m)on "church," the JW's, Moonies, New Age, etc.] re their "theology." Had I done otherwise, I would have been lying. Neither did I lie about my assertion that Mor(m)on doctrine's claiming that Christ was Michael (you didn't say that I did). After about 40 years of being away from the heresy you love, and twenty-two studying and teaching the Bible you reject (except for the convenient parts), I had forgotten that your cult's wicked doctrine claims that Adam, not Christ, was the Archangel Michael. That is NOT what the Bible teaches. You must understand that I am intimately familiar with Genesis 1 and 2. I have published a treatise, under my real name, covering Genesis 1-6. It is an in-depth treatment of the genesis of mankind which is based on the original texts, both Syriac and Masoretic. A misleading post on the Webforum caused my error about your beloved Adamic heresy, I had simply forgotten its form; it was worthless to begin with. There is absolutely no Biblical Scripture which supports Adam's being an incarnation of the Archangel Michael. The position is either exegetical garbage, or the fantasy of the madmen cum fraud artists Joe Smith and Brigham Young. To clarify my position by way of clear omission, I have altered my "Is It Biblical?" web page to reflect your cult's heresy that Christ Jesus was the product of sexual union -- something which you duplicitously "neglected" to mention in your post. That utterly false doctrine is the product of Mor(m)on cult drivel, not the Holy Bible.

In my earlier post(s) I did to set several Scriptural traps to "test the spirits" you have accepted. Now I know from whence they come. One trap was very simple: most of those quotations in my replies were either identical to or inescapably similar to the KJV given any knowledge of Elizabethan usage, syntax, and grammar. Obviously being lexically and Scripturally deficient, you didn't recognize them. You wrote, "We have vastly different views of what the scripture says ...." Laughable! Pathetic! Ignorant! Like all of the other Mor(m)ons I have met, you don't even recognize the KJV's Scripture when you read it! Do you want proof? You totally failed to recognize the John 10:30 from the NIV which agrees word-for-word with your KJV! Worse, you reject Psalms which is part of your "Mor(m)on approved" KJV. What pick-and choose hypocrites you have followed and parrot! You claim knowledge but promote pathetic tripe born of abysmal ignorance. Pitiable blind woman, you do not recognize what you profess! Neither do you do know the Bible, but have accepted it "only as far as it has been correctly translated" (#8). If latter point that is the case, then you must accept the KJV, but you do not! The entire Bible has been "correctly translated" and faithfully copied in the scriptoria using a checksum algorithm. Yet you deny its proven authority through prophetic fulfillment and substitute a 130 year old fraud!

Why do you make claims that prove your "theology" to be that of charlatans and a liars? John 10:30, which is translated identically to the KJV in the NIV is a very well-known proof text for real Christians who KNOW not "believe" that Jesus was not a product of the sex act but of God's overshadowing power. You could not even recognize that passage! Either that, or you didn't read what I wrote, and then pretended to have read it. Obviously you are so prejudiced and blinded by your Mor(m)on cult-inspired heresy that you could not understand or recognize it (the meaning of a "reprobate mind"). In either case you have lied by admission or omission (attempted to deceive me). Foolish Mor(m)on dupe, you only deceive yourself!

Here is further evidence of your abysmal ignorance: If you do not know about the NIV, RSV, ASV, NIV, NAS, Phillips (Good News), The Living Bible, and NKJ, you know nothing of the work of God's servants. One of those, by the way, is not a translation. Do you know which one O one who claims to be a "Bible teacher," but knows nothing of the Bible? Or is it that you lied in claiming that they are "foreign" to you when you knew of them? I find it impossible to accept that anyone who knows the Bible does not know of them -- well, perhaps except deliberately deceived and deceiving cultists.

I use many translations. The disagree most commonly on doctrinal variants of their translators (bias). It is easily ferreted out if a Greek text is available for the NT, or a Hebrew for the OT. The KJV is NOT the authoritative translation, and it is no longer widely accepted because of its faulty, superstition-laden (flat earth, Unicorn) Roman Catholic bias. It is close to fatally flawed. If you want to read a far more ACCURATE translation, purchase a NKJ (New King James Version). The gross errors based on superstition have been removed while retaining its Mor(m)on-preferred Roman Catholic flavor.

Teaching is not an attempt to control anyone, Ms. Pharisee. Teaching is for those who can understand and receive it. Read the proof text for yourself:

Matthew 13:15
15 'For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them.' (nKJV)

You rejected David's righteous declaration about the wickedness of the unborn. Now know that his declaration was consistent with Scripture that David did not write, O mighty Bible babbler, from the KVJ you profess to understand and pretend to teach:

Romans 9:10-13
10  And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11  (FOR THE CHILDREN BEING NOT YET BORN, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12  It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, JACOB HAVE I LOVED, BUT ESAU HAVE I HATED. (KJV) [emphasis added]

Yes, they had not "DONE any good or evil," just as your own grandchildren, but Esau was held accountable before God BEFORE HE WAS BORN. Why? Because God is OMNIPRESENT and OMNISCIENT. He is the Alpha and the Omega. Do you recognize those words? I doubt it. Psalms 58:3 is corroborated, and you are proven a false teacher, fortunately the doctrine of grace does not demand that you be stoned for your heresy. Of course, heretic that you are, when exposed you will reject the very KJV that you profess!

Your accusing me of being a "control freak," a fatuous colloquialism, is just a pabulum-level Pharisaical ploy to disgorge from your ignorance "the hook" which I "set" (yes, a mixed metaphor, IF you know what one is). Your feeble attack is an excuse for ignorance, a way of avoiding truth, and a deadly self-deception. It is unequivocally transparent that you have no desire to learn and are patently incapable of learning beyond the convenient "exegeses" of your heretical organization. Wickedness and blasphemy is comfortable for you, isn't it? God has called you to knowledge, you have rejected His call to truth, exchanging it for a supercilious fraud, a poorly-constructed lie. It is a translucent reality that you can neither understand God's Written Word, nor do you recognize it when it hits you "upside the head." (colloquialism noted)

It is axiomatic that one should never underestimate an opponent. You grossly underestimated me and my knowledge, thinking me an easy mark for your beloved heresy. You clumsily exposed your superficial attempt to return me to the "fold" by denying what you were essaying to do; your puerile plot had been "folded" before it "unfolded." You could not suck me into your inane, duplicitous shell-game. I know, understand, and relentlessly teach the Bible unlike you who being blind and deaf to the Holy Sprit and denying His power (e.g. His being Jesus' father), can only uncritically parrot heresy. I know God's Written Word far better than you can ever know it unless you respond to His call. Absent that calling you can never grasp its depth. Sadly you have not responded to the call, if ever you were among those called. Even if you are called, you may fail for want of His election. Of course, you know nothing of such things as calling and election even though they are part of the KJV which you profess to "teach." If you do know of those KJV Biblical doctrines, prove it with chapter-and-verse. I am confident that you can neither find nor understand them even though there are more than 75 in the OT and NT.

By the way, I have posted another deliberate and wholly obvious error in the foregoing paragraphs. I doubt that you can identify it. What will be your excuse this time? Stop fooling yourself. You know nothing about the Bible, and are unqualified to teach it. Q.E.D.

Unfortunately, you have amply demonstrated your ignorance of the KJV and Biblical doctrine in general with your replies, and there is no compelling reason to believe that you can change that performance. I had hoped better of you. You claimed knowledge; you presented vacuous, unsupported avowals of knowledge which you have demonstrated without question that you do not possess. You evidenced no knowledge beyond heresy. That failure to demonstrate knowledge extended even beyond the Bible. When I requested you provide me with descriptions of the archaeological artifacts you had claimed to possess, you made no reply. You did not deceive me. I have met your ilk many times. You claim to be educated, which includes being an autodidact, but you are neither. You know little and understand even less. Q.E.D. (again)

You and the accursed fools who lead your cult have rebelled against God's Written Word, torn it asunder, and substituted a lie for truth. It is inescapable that God has withheld understanding from you. For wickedness, for the vile sin of adding to His righteous and almost-completed prophecy, you will receive the full promise of Revelation 22:18 no matter what you believe unless God is merciful to you and you turn from it. I doubt that you can for you profess that you love your heresy.

Copyright 1999 "Deke" (a pseudonym)

This document may be reproduced and distributed freely if it is [1] done without charge, [2] all sections of the entire text are reproduced exactly as they appear here, intact and without addition or deletion, and [3] it includes this copyright notice and the author's name or pseudonym. Short verbatim excerpts of this document for commentary are permissible.


At about 5 PM on January 6, 1999, my access to the Reagan messge forums was summarily removed. Reagan obviously approved of wicked Mor[m]on (the second m is optional) Dancer's attempts at extortion. I had posted a complaint to the Webmaster, including a copy of her threats. That was a clear violation of Reagan's rules. Nothing was done. When I posted a link to this page, forcing my critics to face the truth, Reagan terminated my access. I would hope that the decision is reversed, but I doubt that I would return. Their policies are unstable, shifting like storm-driven waves (that's Biblical).


Hosting by WebRing.