Heart-ache: Romney’s great-great-grandfather had 12 wives
posted at 7:01 pm on February 24, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Guess which news agency this came from.
One of our closest allies is two generations removed from Nazism, yet somehow it’s a scoop what Romney’s ancestors were doing 150 years ago vis-a-vis a practice his church no longer sanctions.
While Mitt Romney condemns polygamy and its prior practice by his Mormon church, the Republican presidential candidate’s great-grandfather had five wives and at least one of his great-great grandfathers had 12.
Polygamy was not just a historical footnote, but a prominent element in the family tree of the former Massachusetts governor now seeking to become the first Mormon president.
Romney’s great-grandmother, Hannah Hood Hill, was the daughter of polygamists. She wrote vividly in her autobiography about how she “used to walk the floor and shed tears of sorrow” over her own husband’s multiple marriages.
It goes on — for thirty-four paragraphs. And the only bit of it worth reading is his wife’s one-liner about McCain and Giuliani.
Wondering why they’re making such a big deal of it? Barnett isn’t:
To start with the obvious, Mitt Romney is the most conservative candidate in the field who has, at present, a chance of winning. The press doesn’t like conservatives, or at the very least, is more hostile to conservatives than it is to liberals. The press sees everything regarding a conservative in the worst possible light; liberals are more likely to get the benefit of the doubt…
The press has come to expect Republicans to fit certain molds. They are supposed to be inarticulate and not quick on their feet. The press has stereotyped every Republican presidential nominee since Ford in this way. They are also supposed to be intellectually unimaginative or downright unintelligent. Again, every Republican presidential nominee since Ford has had to live with this label. They are further required to be creatures of politics who have accomplished nothing or next to nothing outside of the political world. Lastly, all Republicans ought to have a bit of Elmer Gantry in them. They should preach about morality and piety, but they should always be obliging enough to have at least a few skeletons jangling in their closet.
Mitt Romney fails to live up to any of these stereotypes.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 »
I second the nomination.
right2bright on February 25, 2007 at 7:43 PM
“A great great grandfather of a great aunt once said I should rule the world… where’s my crown!!!”
Like I said I want my Crown!!! If the MSM is going to hunt in the Great Greats for dirt then I want my crown!!! What do you mean no one said I should rule the world… Well prove it
Gwillie on February 25, 2007 at 8:41 PM
Naliaka, you were the first person in this thread to start beating the “Mormons aren’t Christian” dead horse. Nowhere else, not even in AP’s post, nor the article he linked to, tried to make that assertion. It all started with you.
Sounds like a deap-seated psychological problem to me to have such a hangup over what Mormons believe. But hey, people like you have been dogging our church from the very beginning. Hasn’t made much difference then, and won’t now, so carry on with your bashing.
Hack Ptui on February 25, 2007 at 8:41 PM
In Bushes case both… It just drives the lefties crazy when you point this out to them :)
Gwillie on February 25, 2007 at 8:47 PM
Patently untrue. In Mormon doctrine, an individual is not required to have “convert notches” on his belt in order to be saved. Yes, we are an evangelical church, and missionary work is highly encouraged, but we don’t force or trick anyone into joining. And if any Mormon does resort to deceptive or coercive tactics to do so, they are in blatant violation of our teachings.
I can’t speak for Romney, of course, but making such a statement as you have about him resorts to nothing more than fear-mongering.
Hack Ptui on February 25, 2007 at 8:50 PM
They suffer from a complex of sorts.
csdeven on February 25, 2007 at 9:05 PM
Mormons are Christians.
csdeven on February 25, 2007 at 9:06 PM
The JofD are not scriture. They are the personal feelings of each author.
csdeven on February 25, 2007 at 9:09 PM
naliaka,
Tell you what you hypocrtie, you prove Jesus and God exist first. Then you will be in a much better position to speak as if you and you alone know the differences between a Mormon and other Christians. You can start on this website.
http://faithskeptic.50megs.com/
csdeven on February 25, 2007 at 9:14 PM
naliaka,
I really don’t care about your anti-christian rants, I want links that prove Romney is a liberal.
csdeven on February 25, 2007 at 9:25 PM
God=Jesus
God=Holy Ghost
Jesus=Holy Ghost
This is known as the Trinity. (even though the word “trinity” does not appear in the bible)
Jesus had a body of flesh and blood. God and the Holy Ghost do not. When Jesus was resurected, he took his phyiscal body to heaven.
Since all three are the same, what does God do with Christ’s phyiscal body when he is done being Christ and wants to appear as God or the Holy Ghost? Hang it in the closet?
When John the Baptist baptised Jesus, God voice came down from heaven and the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove landed upon Christ. God appears as all three at the same time. If God is not a God of confusion, why go through all the trouble of appearing as three seperate beings when he REALLY wants us to believe he is one in the same?
Enquiring minds want to know.
csdeven on February 25, 2007 at 9:35 PM
If you are going to attack, be honest.
Where did I say you tricked anyone? Where did I state that the Mormons were deceptive or coercive? Are you stating that works is not a part of the Mormon culture? You must be able to point out many apostles that never converted anyone. Could you name a couple?
And you should wash your mouth out with soap for calling me a fear mongerer. What fear did I attempt to instill? That you are expected and required to convert? Does that strike fear in you?
I would appreciate your retraction for your false statements.
right2bright on February 25, 2007 at 9:54 PM
Then why do they call themselves Mormons and not Christians?
It’s hard to know how to respond to someone with a nic of Hack Ptui. who accuses me of deep seated psychological problems.
And the correct quote is: “… he saw the Spirit of God decending on him a like a dove and lighting on him.” Not an actual dove, but in the manner of or the effect of a fluttering bird. see Matthew 3:16.
That’s enough. My posts stand civil, let other readers determine the tone of Hack Ptui, WasatchMan and csdeven.
right2bright thinks I’m presidential material, so I’ll rest with that comfort tonight.
naliaka on February 25, 2007 at 9:55 PM
They only use the word to describe themselves to people like you who don’t bother to find out what they really call themselves.
LDS
Latter-day saints
Saints
Members of the church.
For years it was considered an insult, but the Prophet has decided that the church’s reputation is such that decent people don’t associate “mormons” with the vitriolic nonsence spewed by pathetic people who claim to be christian.
csdeven on February 25, 2007 at 10:00 PM
Whine all you want, but you cannot expect to tell lies about members of The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-Day Saints and go unchallenged.
The full context of your referenced scripture….
Matt 16And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Matt 17And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
So, God’s voice from heaven, the Spirt Descending, and Jesus in the water. That’s three SEPERATE and DISTINCT personages.
So what DOES God do wth his “Jesus” suit when he isn’t in the personage of Jesus Christ? And since you wont be able to answer that, can you answer the wire hanger question? You ought to, you claim to know everything else.
csdeven on February 25, 2007 at 10:11 PM
That does it. I refuse to vote for Romney’s grandfather should he ever run for president.
Tantor on February 25, 2007 at 10:33 PM
Was he a Muslim?
bloggless on February 25, 2007 at 10:34 PM
right2bright, your post made it sound like you think we get to heaven on the backs of our converts. The phrase “notches on their belt” definitely conveys that meaning. If that’s not what you intended, then I take back what I said, but I think any reasonable person would draw the same conclusion by your choice of words. And the fact that you floated the idea that Romney would set up some kind of Mormon caliphate if he became president so that he can get to heaven sounds like fear-mongering to me.
Naliaka, I don’t think someone’s online nic is a good indication of their psychological state. Come on! You can do better than that. Anyway, my nic has a story behind it: It’s from my online gaming days playing Neverwinter Nights–my (admittedly lame) attempt at humor when I made my first character. I used it for years, and now it’s stuck. Now you understand my deep dark psyche. Whew! I feel so refreshed now that I’ve come to grips with my subconscious. :-)
So now that we’re all baring our “id’s” here, what drove you to bring up the old “Mormons aren’t Christians” saw that’s been beaten to death here at HA, every time Romney is mentioned? Does our religion make you feel insecure in yours? Do you see us as a threat or something? I mean, honestly, we can’t have a political discussion about Mitt Romney without your type steering the subject off into a debate about Mormon doctrine.
Hack Ptui on February 25, 2007 at 10:35 PM
I take that back naive comment about being able to peaceably socialize, like canoeing, camping, brunch, etc. with this trio.
Never been accused of anti-Christian ranting before. Hmm.
naliaka on February 25, 2007 at 10:36 PM
You rant against the LDS and they are Christians. Hence, your anti-christian rants.
csdeven on February 25, 2007 at 10:46 PM
STILL waiting…….
csdeven on February 25, 2007 at 10:50 PM
I too am wondering why a non-Christian such as yourself cares Naliaka? “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Yours are fairly telling about what they aren’t.
Are you sure you are fit to judge any of it?
Noelie on February 25, 2007 at 11:04 PM
Nalika, you’ve not answered the question: it was YOU who brought up the “Mormons’ are not Christians” argument first in this thread. Why?
And as for why we don’t call ourselves Christians? LOL–our Church name is “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”–not “the Mormon church”. The Book of Mormon itself is called “The Book of Mormon: Another testament of Jesus Christ.” Mormon is a nickname those who used to shoot us and stuff called us, and we’ve never been able to shake it.
And why some are accusing you of anti-Christian ranting? Because you are claiming that Mormon’s aren’t Christian–and since we say we are, you are thereby claiming that we are not able to be saved. How do you know? It’s attitudes like yours: “Gee, Romney is Mormon–he wants to impose a Mormon fundamentalist kingdom!” etc etc. that is sooo infuriating. Well, don’t vote for an evil Mormon–be happy with your evangelical Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, then.
Seriously, if you cannot hear the words , “he’s Mormon” without starting to froth at the mouth about how unChristian and (apparently) deceiving and satan inspired Mormonism is, because we have the gall to claim we are Christian–then you aren’t exactly being Christ like, are you? Why the heck do you care if we say we believe in Christ? What does it matter? I assume you don’t have the same issues with, say, the Greek Orthodox church–but you aren’t going around pronouncing how misguided and deceiving they are. And they have just as many different beliefs from you, most likely, as any Mormon does.
Geez, why can’t you just give the Mormon bashing a rest? It’s people like you who the Dems count on–and hold up as intolerant.
Vanceone on February 25, 2007 at 11:05 PM
He governed as a conservative - Mitt, early on went after restructuring the fat, bloated, corrupt government here while being opposed at every turn by the Moonbats who control the entire government and press here.
As one of our most prominent grass root activists (Pres. of Citizens for limited taxation) said, Mitt stopped more bad things from happening than you can imagine. Her words have proven true in the last few weeks as the newly elected “Coupe Deval” Patrick has been on a binge in just his first few weeks in office. Stop by BostonHerald.com or better yet, visit coupedeval.com to get a taste of what’s happened here since Mitt’s departure. It’s unreal.
I think Mitt will surprise a lot of people, conservatives included. He’s incredibly articulate, brilliant and charismatic. After observing him for many years, I can honestly say he has a chance to be the true successor to RR (and I don’t say that lightly).
Here is just one example of why I believe it to be true: A few months ago, a liberal, moonbat, hack masquerading as a journalist from the Boston Globe, had this long accusatory “question” for Mitt. Mitt fired back that it was “easy to see” where the guy stood on the issue. The reporter then said that he “represented the people.” Without losing a beat, Mitt fired back that nobody voted for him and that, as Governor, he was the only person in the room that represented the people. I think the clip is on YouTube. If you want a sense of this man, watch it.
TheBigOldDog on February 25, 2007 at 11:28 PM
How convienient that you overlooked your other lies and accusations aimed at me. I listed several, and you mention one. That goes to your moral character.
Every leader, with serious religious convictions, should be asked (and challenged) how he will integrate his religious beliefs and leadership. Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, Bush have all been challenged. Why should he be exempt.
Hate to break it to you, but Joseph Smith claimed not to be a Christian…if he was a prophet he would know. I don’t think he was accused of Mormon bashing.
Take it easy, some people do not like to have language corrupted. If you think that Jesus Christ is your saviour, that he died on the cross, was resurrected. And if you beleive there is but one God and only one God ever, then you are well on your way to being a Christian.
right2bright on February 25, 2007 at 11:41 PM
LOL! Joseph Smith said he wasn’t a Christian? LOL! And right2bright, I was almost exclusively addressing nalika.
Of course, remember the so-called “Christians” Joseph Smith knew–if you want to identify with them, go ahead. He was tarred and feathered by them, driven out of his home, along with his people, a “Christian govener” issued an order to commit genocide against him, appalling human rights abuses, etc etc, and eventually murdered by “Christen men”. That was his experience with “Christians.” And you know what? I don’t want to be like them either. If that is “Christianity” I don’t want to be one. That’s called Islam, I hear.
Of course Joseph Smith was a Christian, as far as religion goes. Get it out of your mind that “Mormon” is not “Christian” or claims to not be Christian. Mormon is a nickname–not our name.
Now your point about integreting religious beliefs with leadership, sure–valid questions. But questioning the validity of the religious belief itself? That’s not the same.
And I DO believe that Jesus Christ is my savior, that he died on the cross, was resurrected, and atoned for my sins. He is God. We DO use the Bible, you know–in fact, we are studying the New Testament right now. Just finished Christ’s baptism. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. They are One God, and we worship no other. If that’s not Christian, then I suppose lots of people other than LDS people are doomed, too–people like Peter, James, John, Paul, etc.
Vanceone on February 26, 2007 at 12:19 AM
Hmmmm,
I got railed on in this thread for calling TROLL!
looking at the responses to a lot of the comments from just 1 of the participants I feel vindicated!!!!!!!
A troll is a troll is a troll is a troll.
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on February 26, 2007 at 12:41 AM
OK, right2bright, here’s the response you’re demanding:
I addressed this, where I pointed out your use of the phrase “notches in their belt.” I don’t think it’s necessary to spell out what that phrase connotes. If that’s not what you meant, why did you choose those words?
Nope, that’s not what I’m stating.
Not sure I’m following your train of logic here. I’m only saying that it is not required for a person to have gotten a “notch on his belt” by converting someone in order to attain salvation. A member of our church can go his whole life and never be responsible for someone’s conversion, and still be in good standing before God.
I’m calling it as I see it. The fear you’re attempting to instill is what I mentioned in my previous post: that you’re trying to insinuate that Mitt Romney is running for President in order to use that authority to convert people to his church so that he can score points to get into heaven.
If my interpretation of what you wrote is false, then I’d be interested to hear a clearer explanation from you of what you meant. If I’ve taken it wrong, I’ll be happy to apologize. I realize that oftentimes, what one reads is not always what the writer intended to say.
Hack Ptui on February 26, 2007 at 1:00 AM
The temple in San Diego, Ca., when entering has a beutiful art mural of the solar system. It depicts the many worlds…in each of those worlds there was a God. Mormons are poly theists, their teaching is poly theists. Christians are mono thiests. That would be one difference. Maybe the other difference would be the trinity, LDS believes in three seperate beings, Christians believe in there only be one or Trinity. This is not my beliefs, this is from the LDS literature. If you are a Christian than you have complete belief in the Apostles creed or the Nicene creed.
Here is a riddle for you; if your dog has four legs and you elect to call his tail a leg, does he now have five legs?
That is why definition of words is important.
right2bright on February 26, 2007 at 1:23 AM
You have very poor comprehension. I never used the words deceptive or any other word you used to disparge me. You made them up. You are trying to make your misreading of my post my problem. Read it again, without your victim mentality. And you will see you over reacted or lied.
And a new accusation popped up, I never accused Romney of using his position to convert.
Good God, you have a reading problem.
Every religious president has been put under scrutiny. How are they going to use their beliefs in balance with his powers? People like you stiffle the debate with lying accusations.
And instead of “notches on a belt”, how about LDS beliefs in works. And the more “works” the better the standing. And if conversion is not a major issue, what is a missionary purpose in the LDS? And why the high regard?
Relax, prostelytizing is an honorable religious endeavor, you should be proud of it, not ashamed.
right2bright on February 26, 2007 at 1:41 AM
Oooooooh… it is SOOOOO hard not to jump in here and start into the Bible bashing (I don’t know if that is a term used outside the LDS church, but it means using the Bible to “prove” your points). That is obviously not going to get us anywhere, since we believe different things about the Bible and how it should be interpreted.
The fact of the matter is that the church’s name is “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” and no amount of argument will change that. We claim the name of Jesus Christ and at baptism and every week in church, we take upon ourselves the name of Jesus Christ (meaning, we regularly promise to try to be like him). We are trying to be Christ-like and according to every non-LDS person I’ve ever talked to, we do a pretty darned good job at it.
We worship Jesus as the only Christ, the only savior and the only begotten son of the Father. We worship God the Father as the only God that we will ever worship. We believe that Jesus died for our sins and rose the third day, ascended to heaven to sit on the right-hand of the Father to rule and reign in Heaven and will one day return to rule and reign on Earth in person.
We do not believe that our works will save us… at least not in the same sense that most Christians refer to works saving oneself. We believe that if your works are good, but your “heart is far from Him”, you will not be saved. Works play a part in salvation, in that works are one of the best ways to get our heart in the right place… by doing what is right, we find that our heart will get into the right place and when we do what is wrong, it is an indication that we love iniquity more than we love God. Christ said, “If you love me, keep my commandments” and we take that very seriously.
Granted, we believe very different things about the nature of God and Jesus, but it is certainly not un-biblical… granted, it is un-Nicaean, because we utterly reject the Nicaean Creed and everything that was spawned from it. We make no apology for that. Do not confuse “Nicaean” with “Biblical”. They are not one and the same.
And herein lies the conflict between the LDS and popular Christianity. Popular Christianity is defined by interpretations of the Bible that are greatly influenced by, if not directly pulled from, the Nicaean Creed along with many more modern extrapolations and expansions of the Nicaean Theology.
But the LDS look at the Bible unbiased by the Nicaean Creed. Why should Constantine’s council in Nicea end all debate and discussion of the gospel? Why are certain verses viewed as being superior to other verses and by what authority were those decisions made? If these issues are as “settled” as popular Christianity claims they are, why was there more than 300 years of disagreement, debate, and schism in the early Christian church?
Granted, the Nicaean Creed is one interpretation of the Bible that seems to fit, but it is by no means the only way the Bible can be interpreted. What about the thousands of Christians who lived and died before the Council at Nicea? Your claims to the superiority of the Nicaean Creed is nothing more than an appeal to tradition and an appeal to authority, two logical fallacies. The Council at Nicea was a big debate and many different ideas were forwarded and in the end the bishops who were closest to Constantine saw their opinions win out.
Joseph Smith attempted to open the debate anew, but many chose not to listen and instead chose to silence him in any way they could, ultimately by killing him. You say that his claims, beliefs, and assertions are blasphemous and heretical, but that is only so if you accept the Nicaean view of God and the Bible and reject the idea of continuing revelation through a prophet. Now, more than 150 years later, popular Christianity is still trying to exclude the LDS view of the Bible from religious debate. You will only accept our views if they fit with your preconceived notions of the Bible, stemming from the Nicaean Creed, which we reject as heretical.
I will grant you the fact that the Nicaean Creed and its resultant theology is much older and is more widely accepted, but that doesn’t make it right and doesn’t make it the only view of God and the Bible. Nor are those who adhere to it the only ones that can claim the title of “Christian”. You don’t see LDS people trying to say that you aren’t Christian because you don’t believe what we believe about Christ. We accept that people can have different understandings about Christ and it doesn’t make them “wrong” or “bad” people.
But all this aside, an important question has been asked: Why do we insist on claiming the title “Christian”? Well, I can only speak for myself, but for me it is because I believe in Christ. I know that he is my savior, that he died for my sins and that there is no other name by which I can be saved. I love Him and I want the world to know that I follow his teachings and that I am trying to be more like Him every day. I know that I fall short and that the “natural man” in me causes me to do things that drive the Spirit out of my life. But I know that by and through the sacrifice of my savior, I will be able to overcome all my weaknesses.
And in the end, I know that if the LDS church is wrong and if I have tried to know and understand Jesus, when I die He will correct me of my errors and will accept me into His presence in Heaven. And I also know that if you are wrong, and if you have tried to know and understand Jesus, then when you die, you will have an opportunity to accept the Gospel as He explains it to you and if you accept it, you can have all the blessings that I will enjoy (if I remain worthy) and I will be overjoyed to see you there.
You are welcome to reject my interpretation of Christ and the Bible, but do not be so arrogant as to deny me the title of Christian just because I don’t believe in your interpretation of Christ and the Bible. We are all trying to follow Him to the best of our abilities and understanding. Let’s just leave it at that. Okay?
Decoy256 on February 26, 2007 at 2:10 AM
You can call ourself anything you like. You can call yourself a Yeta if you like. It does not make you a Yeta. Definition of words are important. A doctor is someone who has fullfilled certain obligations, it is wrong for just anyone to call themselves a doctor. They can do it, but it is wrong. Words do mean something. You can reject anything you like, if you do not believe in the Nicene Creed, fine, it is a definition of Christianity beliefs. Christians, by definition, are mono theists, LDS are poly thiests. Christians believe the bible is the sole spoken word and accept no other, LDS accepts other books. It goes on and on. LDS is LDS, a great successful religion,it is not Christian. I know you want to be but you can’t have a man/god and be a Christian, unless you hijack the definition and re-define what a Christian is. And that is what Smith did. He abhorred Christians.
As far as getting into heaven?
Christ died for our sins, did he die for yours?
Please, use the word Christian with honesty. It does have a proper and defined meaning. It does not include that God was once a man (Isaiah 43:10).
Let’s just leave it at that. Okay?
right2bright on February 26, 2007 at 2:44 AM
You ask me to “use the word Christian with honesty”, but you are consistently and blatantly dishonest in your use of LDS quotes:
Well, if you reject the Nicaean Creed, as Joseph Smith did, then would not everything that came from it cause “so-called Christians” to grovel in darkness? Nothing too shocking about this, especially when viewed in light of what the protestant reformers had to say about Christianity at the time.
Again, there are qualifications put on this quote that you seem to ignore… “true theology” meant something to Joseph Smith, namely, it meant the new understanding he had received about the Gospel. If the Nicaean Creed is wrong, then wouldn’t all of popular Christianity be rather ignorant for following something that was wrong? You lament the so-called ignorance of Mormons, does that mean you hate us? You say you don’t hate us, so I’ll believe you. Why would you say Joseph Smith hates Christians if he is saying the same thing about you that you say about us?
Again, if the Nicaean Creed is wrong, then adherence to it makes you just as ignorant of the things of God as being Muslim or Atheist or Sikh.
This really isn’t that bizarre… you say that LDS people won’t get into heaven unless they accept the Nicaean Creed. Is that really any different? What if someone said, “I accept Christ, but I reject every prophet, apostle, disciple, bishop or beggar who ever said anything about Him.” That doesn’t really make much sense, does it? I would assume that Old Testament Israelites needed Moses’ consent to enter heaven, seeing as how he was the prophet of the time.
Having someone’s consent is not the same as him dying for your sins. Joseph Smith was a prophet, like Moses. Nothing more, nothing less. He corrected the skewed view of the Bible that had been put in place by heretical acts, such as the Nicaean Creed.
As you can see, it all comes done to the fact that you do not put the Bible as the ultimate authority, you put the Nicaean Creed as the ultimate authority and ever verse in the Bible that contradicts the Nicaean Creed is ignored. Why is it so impossible to get popular Christianity to accept the fact that their religion started more than 300 years after Christ and the fundamental precepts of the religion were decided by committee, not by revelation? The Council at Nicea never claimed divine revelation on any point they presented. And even if you accept the validity of something done by committee like that, what do you say about the fact that Constantine organized the Council in such a way as to exclude certain bishops from being involved in the debate so he could get the outcome he wanted? Your religion is based on Emperor Constantine’s political aspirations and desire for control of this new religion, not on Biblical truth.
Hurts doesn’t it, when people throw around disparaging comments about your religion. Even if they are based in truth, they invariably put the truth in a bad light.
It is quite possible that the bishops that did attend the Council at Nicea were good, honorable men who were truly inspired. But then you are putting your faith in men, not in the Bible. Fine, I have no problem with that. You say I put my faith in Joseph Smith… well, if he was a good, honorable and inspired man, then how is that any different than you putting faith in the bishops at the Council of Nicea?
Agreed.
Again, that scripture only means what you say it means if you put your faith in the Council at Nicea. I will not bother quoting the myriad of scriptures that can be seen as saying the exact opposite. It comes down to asking yourself what scriptures in the Bible carry more weight. The only way to know for certain, is by praying and asking God (James 1:5).
You will never win the argument by single-mindedly appealing to the absolute authority of the Nicaean Creed. It is nothing more than one group of men’s interpretations of the Bible, it is not the Bible itself. The sooner you realize that, the smoother this discussion will go.
Decoy256 on February 26, 2007 at 3:36 AM
If this thread is any indication of the road ahead for Mitt he is DOA. There is no way Mitt can survive his fellow LDS members defending their faith by telling 99% of all Christians they are “wrong.” He’s dead. Next!
TheBigOldDog on February 26, 2007 at 7:01 AM
What a hypocrite you are. The JofD are not LDS scripture. They are the personal feelings of each author. Just like the crapola spewed by Pat Robertson when he said Ariel Sharon’s massive stroke was divine punishment for pulling Israel out of the Gaza Strip? Should the entire christian religion be judged by his words? Or should his words be taken as his personal opinion?
Your problem, like most of you so called christian bashers, is that you are brainwashed by your paid pastors because the LDS faith takes away members and in turn tithing. This makes it harder for them to make their caddy payments and other excesses they enjoy from their habit of preaching for money.
csdeven on February 26, 2007 at 7:24 AM
What a hypocrite you are. The JofD are not LDS scripture. They are the personal feelings of each author. Just like the silliness spewed by Pat Robertson when he said Ariel Sharon’s massive stroke was divine punishment for pulling Israel out of the Gaza Strip? Should the entire christian religion be judged by his words? Or should his words be taken as his personal opinion?
Your problem, like most of you so called christian bashers, is that you are brainwashed by your paid pastors because the LDS faith takes away members and in turn tithing. This makes it harder for them to make their caddy payments and other excesses they enjoy from their habit of preaching for money.
csdeven on February 26, 2007 at 7:25 AM
It what way are christians telling other christians they are wrong?
csdeven on February 26, 2007 at 7:26 AM
How else can this be taken:
But, fair enough. If you indeed are saying that you don’t believe Mormons view their proselyting as conquests, and that Mitt doesn’t have ulterior motives in his run for President, I’ll take that as what you intended to say. My apologies for misreading your post. Cheers, mate!
Hack Ptui on February 26, 2007 at 9:14 AM
“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. 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.” Revelation 22:18-19
naliaka on February 26, 2007 at 9:35 AM
I already answered this question twice, here it is for the third time. It is incumbent on all of us to question our leaders as to how they derive decisions. Every religous candidate goes through this process. Kennedy was maybe the first to really be put to task being the first Catholic. You are to young to remember the attack. And it was a worthy attack to ensure that he was not heading towards a religious state. But it was relentless, Romney’s questions will be a cake walk compared to that. Romney is not above these questions, even if you don’t like them. He is not King Romney, get it? He is running for the most powerful postition in the world, every part of his being should be dissected.
Now move on, and quit being a victim.
right2bright on February 26, 2007 at 10:09 AM
Revelations was written before many other books in the bible.
csdeven on February 26, 2007 at 10:17 AM
I have never read of an LDS elected official trying to convert others or to make all of america an LDS kingdom.
Do you have some examples of LDS elected officials doing that? You seem to be awfully worried about it, so I figure there must be some substantial examples that you can point to.
csdeven on February 26, 2007 at 10:22 AM
Where did I say the JofD were scriptures. Could you point that out to me? Would that make you a liar? No, just someone who is so angry that you create your own points of contention.
You may want to look up and study the word hypocrite. You seem to use that everytime someone disagrees with you. Learn a new word.
The JofD were written by Apostles and other leaders of the church. They have backed away from some of those statements (like allowing blacks to become members, and polygamy) but these were men speaking for the LDS church. Not a Pat Robertson who speaks only for himself and a congregation. These were from the president of the LDS. Even more weight than the Pope in the Catholic church. Their leaders set the doctrine. As evidenced by the many changes in the church thoughout the years.
Your theology is weaker than your comprehension.
right2bright on February 26, 2007 at 10:30 AM
All LDS leaders have done their missionary work. And what does a missionary do? Spread dthe word and convert. Try this list, all have served a mission.
Gordon B. Hinckley, President,Thomas S. Monson 1st Counselor
James E. Faust, 2nd Counselor,
12 Apostles: Boyd K. Packer,L.Tom Perry,Russell M. Nelson,Dallin H. Oaks,M. Russell Ballard,Joseph B. Wirthlin,Richard G. Scott,Robert D. Hales,Jeffery R. Holland,Henry B. Eyring,Dieter F. Uchtdorf,David A. Bednar
No worry, I just used that as an example to point out that we must question all religious leaders as to their intention.
I think you are the type to change a posting to try to argue, stick with what is written and don’t infere, it make you look foolish.
You just proved my last statement of my last post.
right2bright on February 26, 2007 at 10:44 AM
You can’t dodge this one. If it’s true for Revelations, it’s true for the entire Bible.
right2bright, don’t waste your time. These people are being dishonest. If they want to argue, they can pick up a Bible and read it, and tell God where He’s wrong.
naliaka on February 26, 2007 at 10:46 AM
Great, now I’m a relative (in-law) of Romney too.
mollo on February 26, 2007 at 10:54 AM
Thanks, Madam President. I just like to see the way they twist and add things to a post. It is as if they do not realize others see them distorting the post. I think they forget this is public, and they think they are in a private dialogue, with a tracking of what was said. It is all very interesting. I had about six accusations added to my original post. I do not think they are lying, they just mis-read, or I don’t know…it is very interesting to me. It is not the debate, they won’t change their minds; it is the process that they use to debate that is intriguing.
right2bright on February 26, 2007 at 11:12 AM
So… you _do_ admit that you think he’s going to do such a thing. Didn’t you just berate me for inferring that from your original post? So I guess this merry-go-round has gone full circle now. Sounds like a good time to get off.
Hack Ptui on February 26, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Wow! Allah_P is really letting the dogs run with this post. I think he should have put the fresh meat picture up for this one. Grrrrrrruph!
There you go again doing the philisophical rope-a-dope. It’s ingenious of you to say that the J&D authors are just penning their personal feelings as though it’s a mere commentary. The people who have been quoted here are Mormon prophets of God. Well, if you’re a prophet of God and you make some sort of declaration about the nature of God then it’s viewed as divine revelation and not merely “crapola.” One of the chief selling points that Mormons use is that they have an honest to goodness prophet of God who’s alive and well and prophesying. If your going to take the writings of your current or past prophets and call it “crapola” then whey bother having a prophet at all?
Mojave Mark on February 26, 2007 at 11:27 AM
I ovelooked your post, hope you are still around. If you think that Christianity began 300 years after Christ, what was Paul doing? Why did 11 out of the 12 die a horrible death, and the 12th lived out his life in prison? Because they worked for Wal-Mart? My faith is in the bible, and only the bible. LDS have a habit of saying only by their interpretation. An easy out, if you do not agree, you just say that is how it is not defined…end of argument. The Nicene creed was used as an example, our one or two paragraphs to define what is in a book. We could discuss this to no end, but you would have to fall back on something other than the bible to shore up your convictions. Let me leave you with this one thing, if Joseph Smith was a prophet, and the KJV states that prophets of God are 100% accurate. Can you honestly state that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were prophets? By the KJV definition (Deuteronomy 18:22).
Joseph Smith said that tall men dressed as Quakers live on the moon.
Brigham Young said that men live on the sun, as well.
Joseph Smith prophesied that Jesus would return by 1891.
Brigham Young prophesied that the Civil War would not free the slaves.
Oops, just a couple of mistakes by a couple of prophets of God.
right2bright on February 26, 2007 at 11:32 AM
What I spent many words on, you say in a few sentences. Thanks for being concise and accurate.
right2bright on February 26, 2007 at 11:34 AM
Granted, but the question then becomes who changed the Bible? Joseph Smith claimed that his translation of the Bible merely put back the things that had been removed over the centuries of translation and re-translation and to clarify what the Bible was saying (not very different than the NIV or any other translation of the Bible).
Secondly, one cannot argue that the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, or Doctrine and Covenants are attempting to “add” to the Bible any more than one could argue that the Book of James is attempting to “add” to the Book of Matthew. Each book is its own work by its own author. The Bible was compiled by those under the direction of King James. The Book of Mormon was compiled and abridged by Mormon and his son Moroni.
Again, you are confusing “Biblical” with “Nicaean”… who is being dishonest? Correct me if I am wrong, but the only reason that I can see for your refusal to acknowledge the possibility that our interpretation might be just as valid as your interpretation is that if you do acknowledge it, it means we just might be right and that scares the ever-living crap out of you. I have already willingly acknowledged the possibility that you might be right and I might be wrong. Granted, it is about a 2% chance in my mind, but it’s still there. I’m generous. But you refuse to acknowledge a single point that I have brought up.
You lob accusations and insults and when I respond with history and fact, you evade and just throw out more inflammatory “quotes” about stuff you don’t have the foggiest clue about. I’m not even sure who you are try to convince, me or yourself.
Like I’ve said before, I am more than willing to debate the Gospel with you, but it must be done with logic, not emotional attacks and inflammatory quotes taken out of context and without even the smallest chance of actually hearing what I have to say. Despite what your preacher may have told you, you won’t go to hell for listening to me with an open mind.
And keep in mind that we were not the ones to start the argument. Allah’s post was about the ludicrousness of bringing in Romney’s Great-Great Grandfather to the political debate. Then someone just couldn’t let well enough alone and piped in that “Mormons aren’t Christian”. It is irrelevant to the topic of this post.
It seems like every time the topic of Mormons come up, someone has to pipe in about how “evil” we are. You know, when you have such a negative Pavlovian response like that the mention of someone’s religion, that is what we call “bigotry”.
Bigotry (noun):
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.
At least we are tolerant of your beliefs. We may disagree and amongst ourselves we may talk about your ignorance of the “true theology”, but we are not intolerant of your right to believe what you believe.
“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” 11th Article of Faith - Joseph Smith.
Now let’s take the Orson Pratt quote and analyze it for what it really says:
What’s wrong with this? If the Nicaean Creed is wrong and the authority of the apostles died out, then where would these other churches get their authority?
He’s referring to “communion” or the taking of the bread and the wine in remembrance of the Savior. The “highly offended” part is him specifically talking to members of the LDS Church. Is this so strange, did someone here not just recently say that they would never worship at a Mormon Church? Would you take our sacrament (communion) if you believe we are of the Devil?
Oh, and by the way, the quote previously posted about the Christian world being ignorant about “true theology”… the poster failed to give us any context (as is usual in this thread)…
Here Brigham Young is recounting an experience that Heber C. Kimball had… he “read them down” meaning, he used the Bible to prove his points (Bible Bashed) and he won… these priests were ignorant of their own Bible, as I see that many here are, relying instead on the apostate Creed of Nicea, utterly abandoning the Bible as ultimate authority even though they relentlessly claim to rely on its authority.
And I should not be surprised that there was no comment on my earlier post responding to right2bright. You cannot defend that which is indefensible, such as the Nicaean Creed.
Decoy256 on February 26, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Again, the ignorance you display in your attempts to undermine
something you only know from an anti point of view is astounding!
You not only claim divine knowledge of who is a christian, now you are going to tell us what is taught?
You sir, are clueless.
Go to the official LDS website to get your info…..you wont look like such a blind follower of your pastors anti christian rhetoric.
csdeven on February 26, 2007 at 12:07 PM
You sound like a paranoid moonbat follower of your church leaders that create a bad guy out of the LDS church in order to make you feel like he is actually doing something for you and then you pile money into his pocket.
Show the group where an elected official who is LDS has attempted to use that position to establish an LDS kingdom on earth. There are plenty of LDS politicians. C’mon justify your fears or admit you are just paranoid.
csdeven on February 26, 2007 at 12:13 PM
That which you claim as “scripture” is not taught and is presented, in the church, as the authors opinion. The teachings of the church can be found on the official LDS website. Not in the mind of a money grubbing pastor who makes tons of money creating bad guys like the LDS church and Harry Potter.
csdeven on February 26, 2007 at 12:20 PM
The book of revelation was written around 95-95 AD.
Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Jude were added to the bible 300 years later.
Regardless of how that scripture is interpreted, add to that the nicene creed issues already mention, you’ve got bigger problems than whether the LDS claim the mantel of “christian”.
csdeven on February 26, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Yeah, I’ve heard this one a number of times and there is no reputable source for this. It isn’t in our scripture and it isn’t even in the “all-powerful” Journal of Discourses. It is a third hand anecdote of doubtful origin.
Yep, he did say this… but again, you fail to give the full quote, which continues by saying:
Brigham Young was not talking about “men” like you and me, he was referring to the Sun being a “celestialized” Earth, where gods live. If you can accept the existence of these gods, then the fact that they might live on the Sun isn’t that big of a deal. It comes down to believing in the existence of gods, which is a theological problem, not a physiological problem. Disagree with it, but put it in proper context.
You can’t give a full quote to save your life… the full quote is:
This would put Christ’s return in 1890-91 as you have suggested. However, the quote continues…
Joseph Smith never said 1891 would see the return of Christ and claiming that he did is just a bold-faced lie.
Wow! Not only do you not know your own religion’s history, you don’t even know American history…
If the Civil War had actually freed the slaves, why would we need the 14th or 15th amendments or the Civil Rights Movement? Blacks were “free” but did not enjoy nearly any of the blessings of freedom. Or are you going to claim that everything was just fine for Blacks after the Civil War?
Decoy256 on February 26, 2007 at 12:50 PM
The basic premise being used here is that the Bible is not reliable, a rejection of the scriptural statement that it is.
God is capable of creating the universe, the air we breathe, the sun, the moon, the stars, the oceans, every single life form on the planet, microscopic to the massive dinosaurs, but He is not capable of providing us with a reliable book about Him?
2 Timothy 3:16
When you see God, you can inform Him that He doesn’t know His own business.
naliaka on February 26, 2007 at 12:55 PM
You overlooked my post about the Nicaean Creed. It is in a couple of paragraphs a summary of what Christians believe.
You have so many misstatemets I don’t know where to begin. First intolerance. Please point out where I show intolerance, not believing is not intolerence, I have never tried to shut you or others up, nor have I mistated what you have written. However, others have put words in my mouth and lied about my comments. Your comments about the JofD is fine, if you reject the Nicaean Creed, than you reject it. End of debate. It has stood the test of time, and Hebrew and Greek lingusts understand it to be defining. Even Jewish scholars admit to its accuracy, if one is to believe in the New Testament. You don’t, you can’t. I can back up, with the KJV, every statement made in the Nicean Creed (because it is a summation there are seveal versions).
I do believe the bible, and only the bible is the final word of God, once again you are putting words in my mouth…that is called lying in some cultures. LDS think there is more of Gods words outside of the bible. And please, do not insult the bible by saying what is written in James is the same as what is written 2,000 years later, the processes are completly different. But that is a tactic used to divert the real word, so back to what the bible says and what you believe. The Bible was compiled by thousands of theologins and has stood the test of time and intellect.
Let’s go to Deuteronomy 18:22, and Galatians 1:8-9. The defining of a prophet.
Does that fit the KJV of a prophet?
I believe Mormons are the only religion, using the bible, that believe in more than one God. I think somewhere in the bible is the statement “I am”. The Greek and Hebrew is quite clear that this is finality…only One and He is the One. But then you would say all of the Greek and Hebrew scholars are wrong. Every single Greek and Hebrew scholar since the beginning of time has this wrong, and only the Mormon church…who do not read text in the original Hebrew or Greek, get it right. Okay then, can’t argue that logic.
YHWH: ego eimi.
Thanks for the insults, it fits you. I answered your question. And I never said anyone was attempting to create a Kingdom on earth. Please point me to that post. I stated; was he doing this to achieve his path to kingdom? Please read my posts and understand them before responding.
Please to not distort what I post.
You have noticed that I have not called you names or mis-quoted you in your posts? Please do the same.
right2bright on February 26, 2007 at 1:03 PM
You really have an inability to listen! We do NOT reject the Bible, we reject the Nicaean Creed, which is just one interpretation of the Bible, not the Bible itself…
You point out to me where in the Bible it says, “Follow the Nicaean Creed interpretation of this book” and I will abandon the LDS church immediately.
Get it through your skull: Nicaean does not equal Biblical.
Decoy256 on February 26, 2007 at 1:05 PM
Moses 4:3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;
Man’s free agency is why the bible could be flawed in some ways. Man has been in posession of biblical script and spoken traditions since the inseption. Would God take away ANY MAN’S free agency? Sure, but then he wouldn’t be the God of the bible I know.
Matt 4:8 is a phyiscal impossibilty.
So, using 2 Timothy 3:16, I rebuke you for teaching false doctrine.
csdeven on February 26, 2007 at 1:24 PM
What’s the big deal with this? Especially considering that when Mitt’s father ran, this didn’t come up. Are we less tolerant or more prone to anything that hints at sensationalism?
I suspect the latter. After all, how many presidents/candidates have ancestors with slave-owners in their family tree? The multiple wife thing is the sort of creepy, sexually deviant stuff we all love!!
honora on February 26, 2007 at 1:25 PM
And I can do the same with LDS doctrine… it doesn’t “prove” your interpretation is right. It still comes down to what scriptures you put more weight on.
How, exactly, are the two processes different? They are only different if you assume that Joseph Smith wasn’t a prophet. If you begin your argument by assuming the accuracy of the conclusion, you commit the circular logic error. “The Nicaean Creed is the only valid interpretation of the Bible. Joseph Smith says stuff that doesn’t a agree with the Nicaean Creed, so he is not a prophet since, as I mentioned earlier, the Nicaean Creed is the only valid interpretation of the Bible.” You really do a disservice to popular Christianity by using this silly circular logic. Your faith hinges on the Nicaean Creed’s accuracy, not on the Bible.
Savior. Yep. Only One Savior. And in the confines of who the Bible was meant for (namely, everyone who has ever lived on this planet), that is totally accurate. Jesus is the Great I Am. Jesus is the Savior. No argument here.
Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. We have armies of scholars at BYU and elsewhere who pour through ancient documents all the time. And the more we study, the more we are convinced of the accuracy of our doctrines. But you have a narrow view of “truth” and consistently refuse to acknowledge that we might know what the heck we are talking about. We are not a bunch of ignorant sheep who don’t know their own religion. The LDS Church has one of the highest rates of producing people with Advanced Degrees (PhD, JD, Masters, etc…) Educated people are harder to dupe.
csdeven, I know you are upset about the ridiculous circular logic these people are using, but be patient with them. They mean well… they think they are saving us from an evil cult. That’s OK. I appreciate the intent they have.
Decoy256 on February 26, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Do you really want to use this argument?
What was the weight of the Gold tablets? And one man carried them?
right2bright on February 26, 2007 at 1:28 PM
I have called you a hypocrite and a basher. You are both.
Your words speak for themselves. Show the group an example that would lead you (anyone) to believe that an LDS politician would use his position to further his “kingdom”.
csdeven on February 26, 2007 at 1:34 PM
I have nothing to prove. You are holding the LDS to your standard and I will not change my beliefs until you can substantiate yours to my satisfaction.
By the way, would you like to explain to the group how any mountain would be tall enough to view the all kingdoms on the other side of the earth?
Matt 4: Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him ALL the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
csdeven on February 26, 2007 at 1:39 PM
You’re right. It is not as the Savior would have me do. If I can’t do it lovingly, I’m not going to do it.
Thanks for reminding me.
Peace to you Mark and right2bright and anyone else I have offended.
csdeven on February 26, 2007 at 1:42 PM
Go ahead and continue to insult. It is my understanding that it is not required to be able to read or write Greek or Hebrew to become a teacher or educator in the LDS church. Am I wrong? You are constantly putting words in my posts.
BTW, the hebrew written in my one post was for one GOD not saviour. There is only one GOD in the KJV bible, and only one for all eternity. That is why I put it in the original text. So your scholars can see for themselves.
Could you point to where I stated that? Another misstatement by you?
The Creed was written centuries after Christ, I never stated my faith hinges on this…I said it was a summary. Another mistaement?
You said saviour, I said God. Another mistatement!
My dialogue with you guys is ended. You have misstated, misquoted, and lied in every post. Shame on you.
But please answer for yourselves the question of prophets and their role and integrity in the Mormon church. Does your prophets stand up to the test in the KJV bible and the verses I have outlined? They do not…ergo false prophets.
right2bright on February 26, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Romney probably has some good genes. Can you imagine the tolerance his great-great grandfather had? Must have been round the clock PMS in that house.
Wade on February 26, 2007 at 2:34 PM
True, but kinda hard to work into a campaign ad!!
honora on February 26, 2007 at 2:37 PM
This will be the tip of the ice-berg. Who care how many wives his great great grandfather had. How many slaves did some of the candidates great grandfather had. As I posted earlier, Joe Kennedy was a rum runner, made his money illegally…does that make Ted Kennedy a womanizer, alcholic, or irresponsible driver?
right2bright on February 26, 2007 at 2:50 PM
For the edification of the casual readers, there is no book named “Moses” in the Bible. The accounts of Moses are found in the books: Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
naliaka on February 26, 2007 at 3:13 PM
There is no book of Moses in the traditional Bible.
There is, however, a book of Moses. It appears to be a Mormon thing.
Esthier on February 26, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Actually I thought they were speaking of Numbers which is the fourth book of Moses, in the KJV. It reads:
Me thinks they are a little confused.
right2bright on February 26, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Is this really necessary?
We’re talking about the time when Rome practically ruled everything, at least everything worth ruling. I’m sure it was very hard for the devil to find a mountain high enough to point to the land Jesus grew up in.
And it’s also likely that the devil simply pointed in the direction of other lands and did what Simba’s dad (in the Lion King) did, claiming, “all of this could be yours.”
Joseph Smith claimed to be the only one who could read certain golden plates and then claimed that upon the second reading it wouldn’t read the same when asked by one of his scribes to re-read the plates.
Leaps of faith are just that, leaps. Accept it or don’t, but to call something a physical impossibility… you do realize that the Bible also claims Jesus walked on water right?
Esthier on February 26, 2007 at 3:54 PM
I understand where the book of Moses is. The concept is truth, whether you believe the scripture or not.
Whenever God exhorts us to pray, repent, sin no more, obey his commandments et al, he is revealing that we all have free will and it is paramount to our salvation. He could force us all to believe in him by removing free will. The events in the Garden of Eden were based on free will. Therefore the statement is valid concerning mans free agency.
csdeven on February 26, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Why are Mormons called Mormons? What’s the etymology of the word?
honora on February 26, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Since satan is the god of this earth, I guess he’d know where the kingdoms of the earth were right? He said “all”, not “some”.
Ths point is that the bible has issue’s that are inconvienent for some people who mant to use it to judge other peoples faith in God and their relience on Jesus as their Savior.
It was an attempt to encourage some humility in those whom are inclined to be prideful.
csdeven on February 26, 2007 at 3:59 PM
You know, I love how Naliaka and Right2bright (and the other anti-mormons) here, swear they know what we believe better than I do.
Questions for you guys: Is God dead? Does He not speak? I assume you wouldn’t say that. If God DID speak today, would you listen? How could you? You automatically assume that God shut up after the book of Revelations.
Yes, I know that there is differences in religion between my faith and (presumably) you evangelicals. I also know that Peter, James and John didn’t believe in the Nicene creed, or it’s ilk, so I assume they are wrong too.
Oh, and you are aware that if you follow Naliaka’s version and interpretation of revelations, you’d have to stop the bible after Deuteronomy, right? Because Moses said the same thing…. so we should all become Jews, I suppose.
What’s the difference, right2bright, between YOUR view and how you are arguing and various Imams? They have arrogated to themselves the authority to say who gets into heaven or not–you are saying Mormons are evil and we are trying to create a “Kingdom of God.”–that Romney is a “Mormon Manchurian candidate.” Fine, vote for Obama. You can cuddle your bigotry to your chest, and you’ll be happy knowing that people like you (anti-mormons) will quite likely help elect Hillary, Obama, etc–or do you not care?
Just remember that without fail, all these arguments you are advancing against the Mormon faith are just as powerful, if not more so, against the Bible. You are shooting off your foot in the process of this debate. As an example–you are saying that Joseph Smith cannot be a prophet unless he had perfect knowledge of things. Guess what, toss out Moses! He made lots of biology mistakes in classification too! Luther wanted to remove the book of James from the Bible because “it was spawned of Satan” or something like that–was he right? Every argument you advance against us can be turned right around, and you’ve proven why you should be an atheist. If you want to do that, go right ahead–at least Atheists are intellectually honest.
Vanceone on February 26, 2007 at 4:04 PM
Oh, and Honora–Mormon is a nickname. We have the Book of Mormon as a sacred text, in addition to the Bible. In brief, the Book of Mormon is a record of Christ’s dealings with a portion of people on the American continent somewhere, covering a time period roughly 600 B.C to 420 A.D. So, it’s a companion to the Bible, and certainly doesn’t replace it (in fact, in English we use the KJV version). Mormon was the leading author of the book, and so it is called after him. Joseph Smith translated it in the early 1800’s. Since we have it, we’ve been nicknamed “Mormons” ever since.
Vanceone on February 26, 2007 at 4:08 PM
You claim he is god of this earth. The Bible I read does not make this claim.
And again, the verse doesn’t say that they saw every detail. All that would be required for this to be true is for Satan to point in a certain direction and imply that he is point towards a kingdom that may have or may have not been seen.
I understand why you are trying to find fault with the Bible others use, but there is no reason for it, especially since you claim to adhere to the same scripture. This would be like a Christian condemning Jewish texts, the first five books of the Old Testiment.
Seriously, the biggest leap is to believe that Christ came, died and rose again at all. Beyond that, why bicker over specifics? I’ve never read Mormon literature, so I can only speak for my Bible, and it doesn’t tell me that this is OK.
If there is a legitimate debate here, then let’s have it and have it with the respect due to children of God.
Esthier on February 26, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Can you explain this? My book doesn’t have a Moses book, so how does your argument here work? I’ve read the Old Testiment several times and can recall no time that Moses spoke of biology.
Esthier on February 26, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Fine, I will shoot myself in the foot. I still do not have an answer to my prophet question. I am following the beliefs in the KJV of the bible, with references. Are you?
right2bright on February 26, 2007 at 4:26 PM
Thanks, I really don’t know much about Mormons. I am somewhat taken aback that religious intolerance among Christians appears still alive and well. Had hoped this particular battle had been fought and won in 1960.
honora on February 26, 2007 at 4:26 PM
I assume all your comments are directed at me, so I’ll address them all in return (even though it was others, not of the LDS faith who started to “bicker over specifics”).
I get it from 2 Corinthians 4:4….
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. The LDS church does not spend any time deriding others faiths, but if you look at many Christian churches, they have entire weeks devoted to bashing persons of the LDS faith.
I hope that clears it up for you.
I don’t claim the bible to be taken literally, but those who are judging those of the LDS fath do. I am not trying to find fault, I am trying to get them to reconcile what they say with what the bible says. I use the same exact bible.
Again, the bickering was started by those who refuse to allow LDS persons the title of “Christians”.
csdeven on February 26, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Why? Baptists were burned at the stake as heretics. This is nothing new.
I’m just grateful no one is killing the other over this.
Esthier on February 26, 2007 at 4:35 PM
Actually, I already posted a response to your statements about the prophesies of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith. The problem is that you start with the assumption that they aren’t prophets, and then find tidbits to support your preconceived notions, but these tidbits only work if taken completely out of context or entirely made up.
Well, let’s look at exactly what you said:
Okay, so you did say “God”, but then you turn around and use the term “I Am”, which is ALWAYS used in reference to Jesus (Revelations 1:4 - the Great I Am That I Am; various other places in the NT where Jesus refers to himself as “I Am”). So which is it? God or Jesus? If you want to prove your point to someone who already believes in the Nicaean Creed, then you’re doing a great job. However, I don’t believe in the Nicaean Creed and I reject every interpretation of the Bible that is related to it. You seem to want to have an honest debate about what LDS people really believe, but then you insist on using non-Biblical sources as your proof. You complain that we twist your words around, but that is exactly what you do with our words and the words of our prophets. You do not seem interested in truth, only in backing up your preconceived notions about LDS doctrine.
How in the world did I insult you in my 1:27pm post?!? I said you were making assumptions, which you were. I said you have a narrow view of “truth”, which by your own admissions, you do. I didn’t say you were stupid or ignorant or un-Christian or deceitful or ungodly or blasphemous. But you have either said or implied each of these things about the LDS Religion and People. Now, if I have misinterpreted, I apologize, but this is how I have seen it.
Nope, you’re not entirely wrong on that point. Reading and writing Hebrew and Greek is not a requirement for teaching in Sunday School. But reading and writing in Hebrew and Greek is required for our scholars who write the lesson plans for teaching in Sunday School. Many of them are (or were) professors at BYU. And yes, Joseph Smith did read Greek and Hebrew (at least later on in his life, if not at first).
I would like to know how many of your Sunday School teachers have been fluent or even well-versed in Greek or Hebrew. But it doesn’t even matter because this is totally a straw-man argument. You are just full of logical fallacies.
And I am not putting words into your post… you said:
So, the “Mormon Church” (that is, the church as a whole) “do[es] not read text in the original Hebrew or Greek”, but when I point out that we d