Taking advantage of the emotionally unstable is not fair game in God’s play book; it is merely a political practice.–maverick muse on December 7, 2007 at 11:26 AM

I provide brief, accurate, applicable explications of Mormon-ISM. Unless you are ignorant or deceitful, you can not deny what I write of that church.

As per any one targeting the weak in spirit to rape, that is not Christian behavior, no matter how “common” or politically accepted the practice.

In response to Decker, I neither wrote of you, Buy Danish, nor of Romney. Do not convolute text.

Mojave Mark on December 8, 2007 at 1:44 AM

Oh, so now you’re comparing Romney to Bin Laden? What an absolutely pathetic analogy. Most of us are smart enough to differentiate between barbaric savages and good citizens, but apparently you are lacking some basic skillz.

What matters is how you lead your life, and you’ve got some competition with the Romneys.

Good luck with that!

It’s the object of out faith that matters not the faith in and of itself. Brigham Young taught that Joseph Smith will ultimately decide who gets into heaven. Does that sound like Christianity to you?

Taking advantage of the emotionally unstable is not fair game in God’s play book; it is merely a political practice.
maverick muse on December 7, 2007 at 11:26 AM

So, am I to infer that Mormons are “emotionally unstable”?

Their duty is to convert the world and condemn all those who will not convert, and to assassinate those who speak against them.

maverick muse on December 7, 2007 at 12:34 PM

Look at the history of the Romney family (Mitt and his parents) and I can tell you that this is unadulterated BS. Moreover, going back to the 19th Century to slander those in the 21st Century is a cheap tactic and is akin to asking us to take responsibility for slavery, for Jim Crow laws, or a lack of women’s suffrage – parts of our history that preceded us and which none of us bear any responsibility for.

Is this country irredeemably stained because of those situations, or can we take credit for having evolved as a nation and be proud, patriotic Americans?

I said this at another thread, but I am going to repeat it here: What you and others are doing is a form of McCarthyism, although at least McCarthy was targeting people who really were enemies of the Unites States.

Were you, or are you now, a member of the LDS church?

re: Decker

You have a grad adviser at your seminary, yes?

Graduate research prioritizes BIBLIOGRAPHIES, FOOTNOTES, and substantiated QUOTATIONS.

Beyond internet sources, you will need to visit and borrow from libraries and read hard copy text.

re: Mormon bastardization of Christianity

For those born and raised as pious Mormons, there is no shaking their testimony of themselves. They can not AND will not accept doubt or difference from their avowed mindset as anything but WRONG and/or WEAK in nature. Their allegiance to themselves is non-shakable. Their dogmatism is as fanatic today as ever, though revisionism is the means of their current demand for ACCEPTABILITY.

Reform certainly has its place in ANY social club, Mormon church included. The Mormon’s problem with their own reform is that as a church they denying their own essence even as they change it. The Mormon authorities are masters of self-righteous deceit and propaganda. By chance I noted their official new, improved apologist introduction to the Book of Mormon. The fact remains that what Joseph Smith originally wrote, divinely inspired word for word, he swore was the record of the Native Americans who, according to him, were all absolute descendents of his Hebrew Lehi crossed the Pacific in a submarine and landed in Chili to populate this “American” continent. Bruce R. McConkie (Mr. “power in the priesthood” pulpit pounder) wrote the first “introduction” to the B/M as required during the culminating 20th century Mormon make-over for political correctness that aligns chronologically with “granting” their priesthood to those of African descent.

Mormons and their missionaries teach what sells. Missionary discussions are premised upon one’s receptibility to their claim that someone COULD have a revelation. They never admit their own false pretenses, as they can not recognize their own faults. They must be perfect in order to save themselves through their practices. At this point the young do not even know their own factual history. Any “bad” thought regarding their perfect doctrine and holy past must be a falsehood fabricated by a fallen son of perdition or by hard-hearted bigots who call themselves Christians. Whatever their faults, it is always the enemy bigot’s fault, not theirs. They have re-written their own history so many times over the years, each time with the declaration of thanks for their living revisionist prophet of profit.

You will be inundated by resources of historical documents. Never forget to visit civil/municipal court records, beginning with what is available in the state of New York on that Joseph Smith family. One could begin at the Library of Congress in order to study the evolution of the Mormon scriptures and temple ceremonies. As per reading journals of their pioneers, you will need permission to enter the Mormon Church History Vaults in the mountains of SLC where proud descendents leave their progenitors’ journals for safe keeping. You could view the PBS documentary aired this past year for a contemporary view. There are many well documented sources from those historians who left the Mormon church that will save you from having to re-invent the wheel in beginning your research.

Jesus told us, it is by our faith that we are made whole. Even Mormons have faith in their god, and admire Jesus as their elder brother who showed them how to be perfect in order to become Mormon and even more perfect in their pursuit for excellence. As they say, the glory of God is intelligence. They live by such adept line upon line, precept on precept gobbly goop gospel in all of its glory special dogma that fills in any blank that your mind may have. “Be like us and be happy, or you are wrong out of spiritual weakness,” is their thought mode. Their duty is to convert the world and condemn all those who will not convert, and to assassinate those who speak against them. During the 19th century, the temple ceremony literal blood oaths forcibly bound members together, and there were those dissidents who were never seen or heard of again, left down an empty shaft. Brigham Young had many hench men who left many a mark to be recognized by those who research. Contemporary Mormons know or admit nothing of their own true history, only their revised and authorized version that leaves their behind clean. Their defensive offense on those who know the score is horribly predictable.

It’s unfortunate that some folks feel they need to be apologists for a faith they know little about in order to defend Conservatism, since that is actually a Liberal tactic and doesn’t serve to convince others or always provide the truth.–Hening on December 7, 2007 at 7:44 AM

Excusing or refabricating egregious material matter in order to make it APPEAR either appealing or palatable only has so much effective influence, usually upon a lazy, pre-set dogmatic, or emotionally susceptible mind. Taking advantage of the emotionally unstable is not fair game in God’s play book; it is merely a political practice. Those who scrutinize prior to commitment demand to see who is hiding behind the curtain. Even Dorothy had enough gumption not to fall apart when she SAW the “wizard”. She expressed her indignation and after all, found her way home without him.

It’s unfortunate that some folks feel they need to be apologists for a faith they know little about in order to defend Conservatism, since that is actually a Liberal tactic and doesn’t serve to convince others or always provide the truth.

Hening on December 7, 2007 at 7:44 AM

Hopefully most of us care about how people conduct their lives, and Mitt Romney is unassailable in that regard.

Defining character by action and deeds is not a “liberal” point of view and it’s “unfortunate” that you are taking this dogmatic position.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Not sure how this will go over in Iowa.

Yes, Krauthammer’s was the best of many good articles at National Review (Goldberg’s was good too). Huckabee: cute like a puppy-dog, but slimey up close.

You probably stopped looking at the thread for a while (for which I could never blame you!) but I asked you here a question about polytheism (scroll to the bottom or do ctrl-f and “Moslem”). Would you mind answering?

Many thanks,
Tzetzes

maverick muse on December 6, 2007 at 6:47 PM

Thank you for making the point about being vilified when one becomes an apostate. I have been trying to find info regarding the charges about Decker being thrown out of LDS, and that he is making up his experience in the church. I only became familiar with him while working on a term paper in seminary. It appeared that his points and experiences were the same as other authors and sources,and his research into Scripture and the confusion in LDS theology was valid, and again, paralleling other authors.

If one finds Christ within another faith, that’s genuine and happens all the time. Usually that person then joins an actual Christian church. Decker and others make the point that Jesus Christ is used as window dressing to attract Christians to LDS with a weak sense of theology. Depending on how far you rise in temple worship, you could spend your life in LDS, and never know what Joseph Smith was really all about.

South Park touched on what others have said here, which is if people follow LDS teaching, attend services (eat Jello-O) and are happy…..what’s the problem? To an evangelical Christian, the problem with that is they want to see you saved through Christ.

It’s unfortunate that some folks feel they need to be apologists for a faith they know little about in order to defend Conservatism, since that is actually a Liberal tactic and doesn’t serve to convince others or always provide the truth.

Wow!!!

Does Krauthammer ever nail it, and nail The High Reverend Huckster.

When Mitt Romney’s father ran for the presidency 40 years ago, his Mormonism was not an issue. When Mo Udall was a major challenger for the Democratic nomination in 1976, his religion was so irrelevant that today most people don’t even remember that Udall was a Mormon.

And he’s not going to pronounce upon it. Nice straddle, leaving the question unanswered and still open — the kind of maneuver one comes to expect from slick former governors of Arkansas lusting for the presidency.

He probably did not want to rile the natives too much.

John McCain stumbled recently when he said that the Constitution had established the United States as a Christian nation, which it most decidedly did not.

And Madison said, “The religion of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man.
- Jon Meacham

He is also saying it is unamerican to ask for more details about a candidate’s beliefs. Not sure that was intended by the founding fathers, but maybe it was.

bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 5:36 PM

It was.

John from Wuzzadem, ask and ye shall receive.

Physics Geek on December 6, 2007 at 3:41 PM

Wow. I just finished looking that up at the Wayback Machine site so I could e-mail it to someone. One of my all-time favorites.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I have been sickened by the fawning adulation that Hugh has heaped on Romney these past few months. Get a room, already! My respect for your blog just took a quantum leap, because somebody had to say it. I cannot stand Romney. I have not settled on any other candidate, but Romney makes my skin crawl. The tone of his voice irritates me. He is slick, sly, slippery and whatever other bad word you can think of that begins with “s”! I hope you can help pull Hugh back to being a little objective. If it were Reagan, I’d be right there with him, but to go in the tank for Romney? In the words of that guy who freaked out over Britney Spears, “Bitch, please!”

DOH!!

Hening: Decker was expelled from the LDS church for living in adultery for the majority of his marriage. If you want to take his word as a sort of spiritual guide, by all means. Oh, and he’s lied about what positions he’s held in the church too. Vanceone on December 6, 2007 at 2:12 PM

Case in point, any dissenter from the Mormon religion is villified as spiritually weak and undeserving of God’s grace and human compassion for experiencing an independent epiphany.

Actually, GRACE is not very Mormon, because it is by one’s obedience to Mormon dictates (specifically attendance of meetings, no joke) that they prove their worthiness to their god (proof of their integrity).

Hening’s points are valid, vanceone, like it or not.

Be clear about the Mormon term “the Gospel” as the Mormon gospel INCLUDES ALL of their past scriptures and current magazine publications and every word spoken at their General Conferences. Specifically, they coin the phrase, “the gospel in the fullness of its glory” as only Mormons would have it. So their gospel is not as read in the New Testament or even the four Gospel books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Actually, with all of the vindictive hatred that Mormons pronounce on those who leave their fold (sons of perdition, the higher you climb in their heirarchy determines the proportionate depth in hell that you “fall” having committed the UNPARDONABLE SIN of disagreeing with THEIR AUTHORITY), their gospel is not very good news.

Propaganda WORDING has become the greatest issue for the Mormon salesmanship campaign for power (members and influence) as truly their original doctrines are bastardizations of an eclectic array of interests that caught the eye of a con artist named Joseph Smith:
Swedenborg and angelic visitors
Utopian Communism and the Order
Legitimizing extra-marital affairs with plural marriage
Free Masonry and the temple ceremony
Nonsensical translations of Egyptian heiroglyphs with his OTHER SCRIPTURES, Pearl of Great Price & his dictates according to whim, Doctrine and Covenants…etc., etc., etc.