Huckabee: ”Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”
posted at 10:50 pm on December 11, 2007 by Allahpundit
I said I hoped we were done with Huck for the night. I didn’t say we were.
I’ll give him a pass here. Granted, he shouldn’t be wondering aloud about the doctrinal niceties of other faiths, particularly this one under the present circumstances. But a lot of people operate under a lot of misconceptions about Mormonism, it seems. No need to impute bad faith where simple ignorance will do.
Of course, that’s what I said at first about the “Christian Leader” ad. An LDS spokesman smells a rat:
The authoritative Encyclopedia of Mormonism, published in 1992, does not refer to Jesus and Satan as brothers. It speaks of Jesus as the son of God and of Satan as a fallen angel, which is a Biblical account.
A spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said Huckabee’s question is usually raised by those who wish to smear the Mormon faith rather than clarify doctrine.
”We believe, as other Christians believe and as Paul wrote, that God is the father of all,” said the spokeswoman, Kim Farah. ”That means that all beings were created by God and are his spirit children. Christ, on the other hand, was the only begotten in the flesh and we worship him as the son of God and the savior of mankind. Satan is the exact opposite of who Christ is and what he stands for.”
Maybe Romney should take to casually wondering what specie of property women in covenant marriages are regarded as being. I have a feeling he won’t, though. Exit question: Why does Mitt worship Satan?
Update: A reader sends this link to the LDS website as evidence that Huck’s getting a bad rap from the AP:
We needed a Savior to pay for our sins and teach us how to return to our Heavenly Father. Our Father said, “Whom shall I send?” (Abraham 3:27). Two of our brothers offered to help. Our oldest brother, Jesus Christ, who was then called Jehovah, said, “Here am I, send me” (Abraham 3:27)…
Satan, who was called Lucifer, also came, saying, “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor” (Moses 4:1).
Sounds from this like we’re all brothers, Christ and Satan included, which jibes with what the LDS spokesman quoted in the article said. Huck isn’t technically wrong, in other words, although he does seem to be suggesting a special sibling relation between Christ and Satan — as though Mormons somehow equate the two — that I’m not seeing in this passage. As noted above, I’m willing to chalk it up to simple misunderstanding. Our LDS readers can take it from there in the comments.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Allah, is that picture of Huck going up on the wall next to the creepy pics of Frankenhillary, Ahmadinejad looking over his shoulder and Rosie’s horrific scowl?
fiatboomer on December 12, 2007 at 9:29 AM
Oh, ok. Yes, I agree there is a big difference in what Christians believe as the nature of God and Jesus and what the LDS believe. It is one of the principle things, IMHO, that separate LDS from Christianity, and it is one of the principle things that led the Catholic Church to decide not to accept LDS baptism as a Christian baptism.
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 9:32 AM
JiangxiDad on December 12, 2007 at 8:36 AM
Only in the sense of having a chance to win. Republicans are not allowed to speak of their faith as they run for office. Everyone knows that. Proof; CNN last night went on for two hours about this without so much as a sentence to explain it or a mention of Hill’s or O’s supposed faith. Brought in expert after expert ridiculing these guy’s ‘faith.’ A few more weeks of that and it’s over.
Griz on December 12, 2007 at 9:45 AM
Mike Huckabee is a combination of Elmer Gantry and Goober Pyle. If he is not directly involved in the constant references to Romney’s religion, Huckabee is doing it on a wink and a nod. Don’t forget he has done the same thing with Guiliani as well. In the debate with CNN, the Republican candidates were all asked if they believe in the literal truth of the bible. When Rudy stumbled a bit on the question, Huckabee stated in his most smarmy manner: “Well, I can help you out with that”. Huckabee was signaling to his audience two things about Rudy: 1) Rudy is a New York City pol 2) I am a believer and Rudy is a nonreligious Catholic and he is not one of us.
Rudy should have said: “I revere the bible but beyond that my religious beliefs are my own and I choose to keep them private”. That is the same thing that Romney should say. But when both Rudy and Romney can’t figure out how to answer, the smarmy Huckabee will pounce. Huckabee’s claim to fame is that Don Imus designated him one of only two “good Republicans”. Imus made McCain the other “good Republican”.
Larraby on December 12, 2007 at 9:49 AM
CNN will do everything it can to get Hillary in office in 2009. If they are attacking Huck, they must think he is some kind of threat to that goal.
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 9:51 AM
We’ll have to disagree–or maybe I’m not understanding you. I’m not religious or a Christian, but I don’t mind some talk by the candidates about how their faith informs their decisions–not that I want to hear it every day. Also, if CNN or other MSM knocks Rep. candidates about religious beliefs, it helps motivate the right.
What I am worried about is all this intra-party squabbling about religion. That is poison to us, ammo to our Dem. opponents, and can sink us.
JiangxiDad on December 12, 2007 at 9:52 AM
True. You can’t say, as Mitt did, that “freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom” without generating a lot of questions about your particular religion. However, neither part of Mitt’s nifty JFK-like chiasmus is true, and he’d have done better to borrow JFK’s argument instead of a rhetorical device.
Fred, Rudy, and McCain are going to benefit from sitting this out.
dedalus on December 12, 2007 at 9:53 AM
To be honest, I don’t think Rudy thinks much about the Bible at all. (disclaimer: Rudy is my #2 guy, and the way it looks, he will probably be the one I vote for in the primaries)
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 9:53 AM
My position is that I think it was a mistake for Mitt to do the religion speech at all. We will see how it affects the campaign in the long run. In the short run it has brought religion into the campaign. I would expect more religous questions at the next debate.
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 9:55 AM
A little knowledge of history and the use of words will clear this up. This is a passage that for thousands of years have been used, but this is one of the best most concise articles on the “first born”…we have to look at tradition.
See how simple it is when you move away from the propaganda?
You can be the first, and only, and you must be called that (first) legally…even when you are the only, you are the first.
These are the “nuances” that are so cultural, that anti-Christians never catch or learn. This is why the bible has stood for 2,000 years. When you go back and compare versus (you don’t think the ancient scribes saw this supposed discrepancy?)with the ancient laws and mores it makes sense. Difficult to pick up, unless you were either inspired by God to the truth, or you researched it and relied on the vast resources available today, which was unheard of 200 years ago.
But then, this truth will be discarded if it doesn’t fit the “agenda”.
right2bright on December 12, 2007 at 9:55 AM
I agree.
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 9:55 AM
Vanceone has been very charitable, I don’t see any purpose in insulting him.
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 9:57 AM
Putz.
thareb on December 12, 2007 at 9:57 AM
Here is a point that should not be missed. Look at the quote from the LDS spokesperson. He/she accuses Huck of trying to smear LDS by asking the question whether Jesus and Satan are siblings, then describes their relationship as follows: “Satan is the exact opposite of who Christ is and what he stands for…” The LDS spokesman was spinning LDS doctrine to help Mitt and hurt Huck. The LDS spokesman could have said, “Of course they are brothers, that is what our text says…” But that would help Huck, and hurt Mitt (and LDS?). The LDS spokesman was not being an honest theologian, but a PR person trying to win our confidence by misrepresenting the true state of the facts — maybe something replete in this religion of Mitt’s fathers.
tommylotto on December 12, 2007 at 10:03 AM
And for the general response to whether Satan and Jesus are brothers? Well the Mormons do teach they are spiritual brothers, I guess as we all are according to them. But here is a simple biblical explanation.
right2bright on December 12, 2007 at 10:16 AM
JiangxiDad on December 12, 2007 at 9:52 AM
I guess I haven’t been clear. Your worry is exactly my point. Intra-party squabbling on any unimportant issue will cloud our resolve and the Dem media will drive into the ground. It won’t be long before the less intelligent will be regurgitating CNN’s and MSNBC’s propaganda. Elect republicans and we’ll have a religious state, elect republicans and we’ll have ______. [fill in the blank]
Griz on December 12, 2007 at 10:20 AM
If I were a LDS spokeperson, I would be trying to make sure Mitt is elected president. That would be great publicity for my church.
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 10:22 AM
Is dwelling your only standard? If someone believes, lets say in Marxism, but does not dwell on it, that is okay with you?
Maybe, just maybe some are bothered that a person would believe that he is a “savior” (of the dead no less), and believes he is going to be a “Father” to millions of spirit-children on another planet some day, as he sires them with his harem of polygamously married wives…if that sits with you as a great leader, then fine.
Some may accept it, because he doesn’t dwell on it, and he is wise to keep it to himself…
One should know all aspects of a potential candidates life and their goals…everything is on the table.
We have seen Huck’s, and I think it is pretty ugly, no one else should be exempt.
right2bright on December 12, 2007 at 10:25 AM
Worst example ever!
sweeper on December 12, 2007 at 10:33 AM
C’mon greggish, AP seems to delight in posts that will serve to cast doubt and confusion re: Christianity.
Spin it however you want, the LDS position states that Jesus and Lucifer are kindred — a position not found anywhere in Scripture.
FWIW, I am not a Huckabee supporter, but I have noted that as he polls higher, he gets more and more negative attention from the MSM. And if it’s in the news, it finds its way to HA.
least1 on December 12, 2007 at 10:35 AM
Ryan Gandy on December 12, 2007 at 10:35 AM
My take is that Huck was being pressed to say something about Mormonism (Romney) and at first passed, but he ultimately couldn’t resist a smartass jibe based on what he had probably heard a number of times before.
As posted above, it is true that Jesus and Satan are brothers in more than a metaphorical sense in Mormon teaching. Mormons (not all) have taught that they were the two leading spirit children of Earth’s creator-god. It is also true that they are now opposites and not equal.
Even though Huck is not incorrect in his suggestion, I think he should immediately apologize because (if he believes this) he now realizes that that point of their teaching is indeed usually emphasized by others not to simply clarify what is unique about their teaching, but in a deliberately condescending manner. “And to the extent I perpetuated that attitude, although not my intent to offend, I was wrong.”
Frankly I don’t think America as a whole is ready for either a Mormon or Southern Baptist preacher, no matter how strong GOP support; and I’m an sympathetic Christian saying this. I’ll most likely go for Rudy, but I’m not exactly delighted about that.
G. Charles on December 12, 2007 at 10:36 AM
This whole thread is sick. What, is this web site little more than an apologist for the false religion of the mormon cult?
There IS a reason that Mormons were forced to end up “settling” in the Utah desert. That reason is perfectly clear to any Bible believing person who takes but a glimpse into the false teachings and mentally twisted theology of Mormonism. How sad for America that the day has arrived when not only can’t non believers tell the difference between Christians and cults, but far worse, many professing Christians can’t seem to tell the difference anymore either.
Here are a few statements by Mormon Church founders and leaders. Mormons have been trying to hide the crazy that their founders spewed forth for over a century now…they must have been doing a fairly good job of it, considering how many people there are posting here they have apparently fooled.
Joseph Fielding Smith – Restrictions on blacks not getting the priesthood will not happen till the “far distant future” and “on some other world.” — Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. 2, p. 188 (1958)
Brigham Young – Cain and his posterity will remain cursed and not receive the priesthood until all other children of Adam have had this privilege. — Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 143 (December 12, 1854)
Brigham Young – The mark of Cain is a flat nose and black skin. — Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 290 (October 9, 1859)
Brigham Young – The present struggle (Civil War) will not free the descendants of Ham who are slaves. — Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 250 (October 6, 1863)
Brigham Young – A person of Jewish blood will always apostatize from the LDS faith. — Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 142 (December 12, 1854)
Brigham Young, “the only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” — Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269 (August 19, 1866)
Orson Pratt – “God promised in the year 1832 that we should, before the generation then living had passed away, return and build up the City of Zion in Jackson County.” — Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 362 (May 5, 1870)
Brigham Young – For Congress to demand relinquishment of polygamy is to ask for renunciation of entire faith. All talk of another revelation is childish babble. Mormonism is in its entirety revelation from God or nothing at all. Millennial Star, vol. 27, p. 675-676
Heber C. Kimball – Plurality of wives is a law established by God forever. It would be easier for the United States to build a tower to remove the sun as to remove polygamy. Millennial Star, vol. 28, p. 190
“It has been said that Adam is the God and Father of the human family, and persons are perhaps in fear and great trouble of mind, lest they have to acknowledge him as such in some future day. For our part we would much rather acknowledge Adam to be our Father, than hunt for another, and take up with the devil.”
Brigham Young (Millennial Star, vol.15, p.825).
“…every Knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that he is the God of the whole earth. Then will the words of the Prophet Brigham, when speaking of Adam, be fully realized—’He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.‘ ”
(Millennial Star, vol.17, p.195).
“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)
In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)
You could post crazy statements like these for days because Mormon theology is so perverse when comparing it to what God actually says in scripture that no one could possibly confuse their hideous religion with any form of Christianity IF they took but a few moments to look into it.
NRA4Freedom on December 12, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Lol!
Joe would really be pissed off, ’cause the huge blinking spaceship has landed on Earth II and now all the blacks are pouring out.
Ryan Gandy on December 12, 2007 at 10:48 AM
Of course, the cult card. Cult cult cult cult cult…of course, no Christian religion is a cult, because the snake-handling Christian sects or Christians who speak in tongues because they were overcome by ‘the spirit’ while attending church…all that’s just normal, everyday, Huckabee Christianity. Right?
James on December 12, 2007 at 10:54 AM
Take your bigotry elsewhere!
davenp35 on December 12, 2007 at 10:57 AM
A cult is a group practicing beliefs that are either false, unorthodox or questionable.
http://www.mazeministry.com/topics/whatisacult.htm
http://m-w.com/dictionary/cult
Heaven’s Gate … Jonestown … both perfect examples.
To compare the Christians that handle snakes or speak in tongues to “cults” is ridiculous at best. Its not heretical or unorthodox to follow beliefs and practices clearly outlined in the Bible.
Ryan Gandy on December 12, 2007 at 11:04 AM
From Ryan’s middle “leaderu” link above:
Jehovah of the O.T. was a spirit child of Elohim. When revealed in the N.T., we find that Jehovah = Jesus.
“Jesus Christ was Jehovah…Jesus Christ, who is the Jehovah of the Old Testament” (Doctrines of Salvation, vol.1, p.11,27).
Regarding Jesus’ (Jehovah’s) principal brother:
“The principal personalities in this great drama were a Father Elohim, perfect in wisdom, judgment, and person, and two sons, Lucifer and Jehovah.” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 32-33).
My point is, that just as many are calling B.S. that this was an “innocent mistake” by Huck, it is also B.S. by the Mormon spokesperson that “hey, everyone’s a brother–nothing to see here, move along”. The LDS teaching is: Jesus and Satan, as brothers, with their father “Elohim” are the three main characters in the Mormon pre-Creation narrative.
G. Charles on December 12, 2007 at 11:05 AM
Oh come on now.
I’ve said it before and I will say it again … Accusing everyone who disagrees with you of bigotry in order to shut them up is something I’d expect out of pro-homosexual, pro-affirmative action, pro-illegal immigration liberals.
Ryan Gandy on December 12, 2007 at 11:05 AM
You don’t get the point? Example or not, you don’t understand that if someone does not dwell on something, it doesn’t mean he is not committed to it? You don’t understand that comment?
right2bright on December 12, 2007 at 11:18 AM
See! Religion poisons everything!
ronsfi on December 12, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Of course, the cult card. Cult cult cult cult cult…of course, no Christian religion is a cult, because the snake-handling Christian sects or Christians who speak in tongues because they were overcome by ‘the spirit’ while attending church…all that’s just normal, everyday, Huckabee Christianity. Right?
James on December 12, 2007 at 10:54 AM
Again, Mormon theology is a total perversion of what the Bible actually states. “Speaking in tongues”? According to the Bible there was an actual need for this to happen, unlike virtually ANY doctrine of Mormonism. C’mon, do you REALLY think that the God of the Universe needed to send some supposed “angel” named Moroni(a being NEVER spoken of in scripture by the way and supposedly a resurrected son of a Mormon…which the Bible clearly says angels are NOT “resurrected” previously dead people) to a man in the 1800′s to give him some supposed golden tablets and some super duper special seer stones to read them with…just reading the history of Mormonism ought be enough, yet I suppose that Scientologists have the same blindness, since their theology is just as goofy…
Early History of the Mormon Church
1805 Joseph Smith, is born in Sharon, Vermont
1820 Joseph Smith went into the woods to pray concerning which church to join. He had his First Vision of God the Father and Jesus who appeared to him and told him not to join any of the denominational churches. (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith 2:3 & 17-19). other dates given with a different versions of the vision 1832, 1835, 1840, 1842, 1855, and 1879).
1823 Sept. 21 An angel called Moroni, a resurrected being who is supposed to be the son of Mormon who was the leader of the Nephites who had previously lived in the Americas. Moroni directed Smith to the hill Cumorah in upstate NY. He could dig and find these golden tablets (plates) which was written in reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics a sacred record of the people who lived on the American continent prior to the time of the Indians. Joseph examined the plates once a year until 1827.
1826 March, He was found guilty of the misdemeanor of “glass looking” by Justice Albert Neely (claimed to find treasures and lost property by looking into a hat containing seer stones)
1827 Sept. 22, Angel Moroni gives Smith the Golden Plates and instructs him on how to begin the translation process which will later become the Book of Mormon .
1828 June; Joseph Smith joined the Methodist church but was given an ultimatum of either withdrawing his name or standing an investigation. He withdrew his name. “We (members of the church) thought it was a disgrace to the church to have a practicing necromancer, a dealer in enchantments and bleeding ghosts, in it.” (The Anboy Journal p. 1 June 11, 1879)
Question? Why Did Smith try to join this church after he already received the revelation that they were all abominable? “I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were and abomination in his sight, that those professors were all corrupt…. (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith–History 1:19, Page 49) Wouldn’t this be considered disobedience and even joining what he called the apostates.
1829 Smith finishes translation of the Golden Plates, publishes Book of Mormon. (Smith did this by looking into a hat with a seer stone “peepstones”, prior to using this method of translating the book of Mormon He would place his face into the hat and see visions of buried treasure, lost property, of which he was formerly convicted of glass looking.)
1829 “After the completion of the translation of the Book of Mormon in 1829, the angel (Moroni) again appeared to Joseph Smith and received back the plates into his keeping,” (Essentials In Church History, Joseph Fielding Smith, p. 68).
1829 May, John the Baptist allegedly conferred the priesthood of Aaron upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey.
And baptized Smith to accomplish the restoring the true church by preaching the true restored gospel which, had been lost from the earth.
1829 Peter, James, and John, appeared and conferred the priesthood of Melchizedek upon Joseph Smith and Oliver
Cowdrey. D and C 7. says “John the beloved shall live until hard at the Lord’s work bringing souls to Christ.” the Lord comes. According to Mormon teachings, four apostles are to stay alive until Jesus second coming. History shows they all died. Many Mormon leaders still claim they have received spiritistic contacts from their dead “masters”Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, other church presidents (Journal of Discourses, Vol., p. 369; Vol. 7, p. 240; Crowther, op. cit., p. 60)
1830 April 6, Joseph Smith, Jr. founded the church called the Church of Christ. (An Address to All Believers in Christ, David Whitmer, p. 73)
1830 March, first publication of the Book of Mormon.
1831 Moves to Kirtland, OH., Temple was commenced to be built on March, 27, 1836.
1833 Smiths First 65 revelations are printed in Book of Commandments.
1834 Why did Smith change the Name of the Church after God already told him 4 years before what to name it? “In June, 1829, the Lord gave us the name by which we must call the church, being the same as He gave the Nephites. We obeyed His commandment, and called it The Church of Christ until 1834, when, through the influence of Sydney Rigdon, the name of the church was changed to The Church of the Latter Day Saints, dropping out the name of Christ entirely…” (An Address to All Believers In Christ Witmer, p. 73). Now to be called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).
1834 New First Vision information on Joseph Smith’s age. “I shall, therefore, pass over that, till 1 come to the 15th year of his life,” (Vol. 1, Messenger and Advocate, Dec. 1834, p. 42)
1844 June 27, mob attacks jail in Carthage, Ill., Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum are killed. Smith was smuggled in a pistol and he defended himself During the attack, Joseph Smith killed two men and wounded a third with a small pistol he had smuggled into him. (History of the Church, Vol. 7, p. 103). Hardly a martyr as the describe him.
Brigham Young was a member of the church’s Council of Twelve Apostles. When Smith was killed, Young succeeded him as leader of the church
1844 Several splinter groups break off from main group in Nauvoo during the next few years (Divergent Paths of the Restoration).
1846 In February Brigham Young lead the Mormons out of Nauvoo, IL, choosing the site which is now Salt Lake City.
1847 July 24, Mormons arrived in Salt Lake City.
1847 BrighamYoung officially becomes the second prophet of the LDS Church. (Deseret News Church Almanac, 19n, p. 92).
1852 Brigham Young teaches Adam-God doctrine. “When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael the Archangel the Ancient of Days! About whom holy men have written and spoken — He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, p. 50).
1855 Doctrine & Covenants, Brigham Young preaches in a sermon. “Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned.”(Journal of Discourses vol.3 p.266) (Deseret News, Nov. 14, 1855).
1861 Brigham Young said, “Some years ago (9 to be exact) I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our Father and God. That will be a curse to many of the elders of Israel because of their folly with regard to it. They yet grovel in darkness and will. It is one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of heaven. Yet the world holds it in derision.” (Manuscript Addresses of Brigham Young, Oct 8, 1861).
http://www.letusreason.org/LDS12.htm
NRA4Freedom on December 12, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Well, he hasn’t to me, calling me a liar and ignorant…I guess we have different standards.
*
And BTW, I was not insulting him, I was being demeaning and derogatory…please be accurate.
right2bright on December 12, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Here it is! Same as usual. Who is the REAL Christian? This disgusting sectarian infighting is sickening. I am a Godless Heathen but it seems to me that if you say you are a Christian, you are a Christian. Don’t you god worshipers ever get tired of making the same mistakes?
ronsfi on December 12, 2007 at 11:52 AM
So why don’t YOU do it, then?
No…if I really thought that, I’d be a Mormon.
James on December 12, 2007 at 11:56 AM
So what you are actually saying here is, “if you say that you are a” DOG, “you are a dog”.
That’s some real fine reasoning you got going on there. I guess that’s why you don’t understand, because you are “Godless”.
NRA4Freedom on December 12, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Crazyville.
Griz on December 12, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Here is a fact:
Mitt has changed his mind (since running for Pres) on:
Gun-control
Abortion
Taxes
Conservatism
Immigration
Political spending
The one constant has been his religion. If we attack him on anything else, he just claims one of his new stances. And the Mitt-wits say, “yeah that what he believes, he has grown”. But when we point out that he wants to be a “saviour”, and wants to be a God, and populate a world with children from his many polygamist wives, he won’t back away from that. His minions won’t like the statement, but that defines him and his religion.
right2bright on December 12, 2007 at 12:25 PM
Your smug self-righteousness is truly as nauseating as your analogy is inept.
ronsfi on December 12, 2007 at 12:26 PM
I was right: I went to bed, the anti-Mormon crowd showed up. And took a perfectly good thread and turned it into trash.
NRA4Freedom: I am actually appalled that you think it is a good thing that the LDS church was driven out of the United States. Seriously, if it is the people like you who are Huckabee supporters, then I have a very compelling reason to make sure Huck doesn’t get elected, don’t I–my freedom to worship would be at risk.
You apparently see nothing wrong with driving people out of their homes at gunpoint because they don’t believe like you, and that is wrong. And that is not Christian–if so, I don’t want to be one.
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 12:44 PM
Sticks and stones. Prove me wrong or accept it as the truth.
Out of the United States??? Utah isn’t in the US?
NRA4Freedom on December 12, 2007 at 1:01 PM
Lol … Niiice argument you got there, bud.
So if I lie on my resume and say I have a Master’s in forensic science, that makes it true and me qualified to have a job with the city PD?
Ryan Gandy on December 12, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Didn’t you know? Rand McNally has new maps for ’08 which place Utah as an island right next to Cuba. :P
Ryan Gandy on December 12, 2007 at 1:08 PM
So where is the line between questioning someones beliefs, and being a BIGOT. When you quote actual statements that are embarrassing? Or when you call someone a bigot, just to end the argument? You state that because I did not post the complete sermon I was being dishonest, but then I showed you the statement from Young that showed he did believe what I quoted (the rest of the sermon was not important to him, but it was to you),undermining your argument.
That is why these discussion are important, you don’t understand, if there are misrepresentations, then this is the time to dispel them. Use the quotes from your sources to settle it. If you have historical proof that says my post of
is in error, this is your opportunity. Or correct me in this post
If you have biblical scripture that states my scripture is wrong, then bring it in. If the apologetics’s are incorrect, then prove it.
We are talking about the President of the United States, some of us want to know if he feels he really is what I stated in a 10:25 post.
If the Mormons do not believe that, then set me straight. If he does believe that, I think it is important to understand his mindset.
If you think that is bigoted or mean spirited, show me where the Mormon’s do not believe in such things.
Or just call someone a hater…
right2bright on December 12, 2007 at 1:11 PM
It wasn’t back then. Utah became a state in 1896, and it didn’t become a territory until 1850.
James on December 12, 2007 at 1:11 PM
To which I simply say the same.
ronsfi on December 12, 2007 at 1:14 PM
nuance… christians (at least Catholics) believe that there was never a time when God the Father and Jesus Christ existed separately “one in being with the Father…” and so on…
It seems like LDS doctrine posits God the F. as primogenitor or some such….
They’re not hip with Nicea is all…
max1 on December 12, 2007 at 1:19 PM
I do. While I don’t make a candidate’s religious beliefs the defining factor on whether or not he gets my vote (or else I’d be voting for Huck) I do factor it in, as everyone does at some level – whether or not they admit it.
For example – let’s say you’ve got two candidates who are more or less equal in policy positions, skills, experience, etc. One’s a Christian and one’s an atheist. Which one do you think AP is going to vote for? The atheist. Not out of some tribal mentality, but because when you genuinely believe you’re right about something, you think the person who agrees with you is smarter than the one who doesn’t. And all other things being equal, you’re going to vote for the smart person.
I won’t vote for Huck (ever) because I’ve already lived through one Carter administration and I don’t see the need to repeat that experience. As Ace said, if we’re going to have that, at least let the Dems take the blame for it.
I won’t vote for Mitt in the primary because I think Mormonism is kind of nutty. (People might say the same about me, Reformed Charismatic, but I’m not running for office nor do I proselytize so it doesn’t come up.) I will, however, vote for Mitt in the general election if he’s the candidate because while I think Mormonism is nutty, because of the nature of the office we’re electing him to, it’s not as disqualifying as Hillary’s socialism. But let’s not kid ourselves – what the candidates believe, or don’t believe, is a big factor, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Laura on December 12, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Yet another inept analogy. If you say you worship a god then aren’t you worshiping that god? How are you to decide who has the right to claim allegiance to any particular god. What it has to do with you lying on your resume or what species you were born has nothing to do with your chosen beliefs. Clearly you have been retarded by your hate/faith. Good luck in the afterlife. Hope ya git yer perdy wangs.
ronsfi on December 12, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Perhaps they should both STFU about religion?
Talon on December 12, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Whatever. Again, there were reasons…
From the earliest years, Mormons in both Ohio and Missouri began to isolate themselves. To validate their uniqueness they minimized socialization with outsiders and emphasized their differences. Being eccentric made them feel special, and they did not understand that what seemed to be solidarity to them appeared to be insularity to outsiders, an exclusivity that would provoke tragic misunderstandings, persecution, and bloodshed.
The deciding distinction between (other closely bonded religious) groups and Mormons was that the former neither sought political power nor pressed their opinions on outsiders through newspapers or proselyting.
Mormons viewed the Promised Land (Missouri) as their God-given entitlement. They proclaimed that high-minded belief to native Missourians, who naturally took umbrage. (Richard Van Wagoner in Sidney Rigdon)
According to one Missiourian who later became hostile to the Mormons,
Mormons and old settlers got along well until W. W. Phelps began to publish ‘the so called revelations of Joseph Smith’. (as related by Richard Van Wagoner in Sidney Rigdon)
There are numerous occasions in the D&C where Joseph Smith commanded the saints to do harm to the non-Mormons or to take over lands of others which he thought the Lord had given to him. In one instance, it is put in parable form so that the non-Mormons may not know what was going on when the Mormons were instructed to “break down the walls of mine enemies; throw down their tower, and scatter their watchmen. And inasmuch as they gather together against you, avenge me of mine enemies” in D&C 101:55-58. In another instance, former Mormons are considered “salt that has lost its savor” which should now be “trodden under foot of men”. This included former Mormons who wanted nothing more than to be left alone and worship how, where, or what they may as Article of Faith #11 suggests is condoned by Mormonism. This can be found in D&C 103:2-15 which also includes supposed instructions from the Lord that “I have decreed that your brethren which have been scattered shall return to the lands of their inheritances, and shall build up the waste places of Zion” and “the redemption of Zion must needs come by power”.
D&C 103:24-26 is not better when we learn that the Lord’s “presence shall be with you even in avenging me of mine enemies, unto the third and fourth generation”. Much earlier than these revelations however, in D&C 52:42, Joseph Smith has the Lord saying “assemble yourselves together to rejoice upon the land of Missouri, which is the land of your inheritance, which is now the land of your enemies”. What are the non-Mormons in Missouri supposed to think when they read such a revelation? What would Mormons think if the Pope suddenly published a revelation in which he said “assemble you Catholics together to rejoice upon the land of Utah, which is the land of your inheritance, which is now the land of your enemies”?
When Mormons began taking over the lands in large numbers, the native Missourians began to wonder what was going on. The Mormons block voted so their candidate, once they had significant numbers, always won the elections. The politicians had to grant favors to the Mormons rather than the natives in some cases in order to secure the Mormon vote. This kind of practice was seen later to a larger degree in Illinois.
Moving ahead to 1838 and the Extermination Order
The ‘extermination order’ is perhaps the most famous document that Mormons use to show that they are persecuted. Few know the circumstances surrounding its origin. About three months before it was issued, Sidney Rigdon delivered his famous 4th of July speech of 1838 which was partially reproduced in the church’s Comprehensive History of the Church, vol. 1, page 441 as follows:
And that mob that comes on us to disturb us, it shall be between us and them a war of extermination; for we will follow them until the last drop of their blood is spilled; or else they will have to exterminate us, for we will carry the seat of war to their own houses and their own families, and one party or the other shall be utterly destroyed.
Joseph Smith approved of the speech and it was subsequently printed in The Far West, a weekly newspaper, and the church’s own Elders’ Journal. Joseph Smith said in History of the Church, “The oration was delivered by President Rigdon, at the close of which was a shout of Hosanna, and a song, composed for the occasion by Levi W. Hancock, was sung by Solomon Hancock. The most perfect order prevailed throughout the day.” What were the non-Mormon readers supposed to think of these remarks? …
http://www.lds-mormon.com/tmpc.shtml
NRA4Freedom on December 12, 2007 at 1:56 PM
Yeah, don’t let the facts get in the way of a good fatwa.
James on December 12, 2007 at 2:17 PM
The FACTS are stated just above your post. And I included a link if you’d like to read MORE FACTS. Mormonism is a lie from start to finish.
NRA4Freedom on December 12, 2007 at 2:27 PM
You were wrong about Utah being part of the United States when the Mormons first arrived there…when corrected, you made comment that this fact was a ‘whatever,’ as if it had no importance. However, you and another poster attempted to use this distortion of facts to discredit Vanceone…to ridicule him on his knowledge of geography. As it turns out, as a Mormon he knows more about Mormons (and US history, evidently) than you do with your ‘I googled Mormonism sucks and look what I found on this site’ souvenir T-shirt.
I wonder…what other facts about Mormons are ‘whatevers’ to you? Indeed, how can I trust what you say about anything when you treat the facts in such a cavalier manner? Are you cherry-picking other ‘facts’ that make your case easier to sell to an audience that doesn’t research for itself?
But…whatever.
James on December 12, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Romney is a man of granite like integrity. In private business or in government, Romney was a model of good ethics.(I am supporting Rudy, BTW). In contrast, Huckabee had dozens of ethics complaints made against him.He created a phony nonprofit corporation in Arkansas as a Lt. Gov that just raised money to pay Huckabee. He went through a phony “reaffirmation of marriage” so that he could skirt the Arkansas gift law.
As far as nutty ideas, how about Huckabee’s statement that women are servants of their husbands. That would be news to Margaret Thatcher or Chancellor Merkel. If Huckabee meets Chancellor Merkel, is he going to say: “Excuse me Chancellor, Can I speak to your husband while you peel the potatos and bring me my slippers?”
Larraby on December 12, 2007 at 2:55 PM
That means nothing. My point was that anyone can say anything they want, but that doesn’t make it true. Unless they walk the walk they’re hypocrites at best.
And as for all the stuff starting at “retarded” and ending at “git mah perdy wangs”, that made me laugh.
Thank you for being sarcastic and condescending … Now go waste someone else’s time.
Ryan Gandy on December 12, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Not at all – Bryan explained it clearly here. But I’m not interested in convincing you – believe whatever you like on that topic. But just because I agree with Huck on religion doesn’t change the fact that he’s Jimmah Carter, Redux and he’s not getting my vote under any circumstances.
Laura on December 12, 2007 at 3:18 PM
So, NRA4Freedom’s argument is that “Sure, Mormons were driven by gunpoint out of the United States, and yeah the extermination order was issued. I see nothing wrong with that! They deserved it!”
How can you not be a bigot? Seriously, if this isn’t bigotry, what on earth could be? You seriously contend that it was okay to use force to attack members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Would you do the same now? Do we still deserve to be driven out of the US now?
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 3:48 PM
Just returning the favor..bud
ronsfi on December 12, 2007 at 3:49 PM
LOL! Great deception tactic, but then, I never said anything of the kind. Someone said “…LDS church was driven out of the United States” and I asked if Utah was not a part of the United States. I never said Utah was or wasn’t a part of the United States “when the Mormons first arrived there”. But regardless of that, there were perfectly good reason FOR them being “driven out”, which I supplied with a link.
Fact is, it IS “of no importance”. The IMPORTANT thing is that Mormonism is a lying false relgion trying to pass itself off as having something to do with Christianity, which it doesn’t.
Nice spin, but then, I it was I who asked if Utah was not part of the US. Again, you want to argue semantics and stupidity while defending a false religion of lies and stupidity which simply cannot be defended. Now, if you want to paint Mormonism in the same light as say, Scientology, instead of trying to pass yourself off a “christians”, then I have no argument with you at all. AT LEAST Scientology doesn’t lie up front and pose as some form of Christian religion. But, Mormonism does, and therefore is open to comparison with what God actually does say in the Bible…and comparing what God says there with what Mormonism says only proves Mormonism is a lie on every conceivable level.
Whatever!
That paragrapg is just typical Mormon apologetics. ANYONE can very easily compare what the mormon church says to what God says in the Bible, they don’t need to “cherry pick” anything, only compare the truth of God to the lies of a disgusting cult leading people deluded enough or foolish enough to follow it to Hell. You want to believe silly nonsense and the words of a lying crook who lived in the 1800′s rather than what God clearly says, be my guest. Just stop trying to pass yourself and your lying religon off as “Christian”…
NRA4Freedom on December 12, 2007 at 3:53 PM
Just keep on twisting away, straining at a gnat while you swallow the camel! Guess what, you people go back to Missouri with your whacked out religion of lies and try to take land by force that your lying hustler founder says was given to you by your god(which again, is NOT THE God of the Bible), and we’ll all see just how long it takes you to get run out of the Country, again!
NRA4Freedom on December 12, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Well, I guess that answered that– you advocate driving the LDS church out of America, once more. Thank you for your honesty, NRA4Freedom.
Though I hope everyone else can see that maybe I wasn’t too alarmist. And I also hope that someone takes away NRA4Freedom’s weapons before he hurts someone.
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 4:02 PM
Wow! That’s pretty psycho! All your gods are belong to us!
ronsfi on December 12, 2007 at 4:05 PM
That’s all you got to come back with? PROOF that mormons were NOT forced to move on for no good reason and all you can do is come back to me? Pretty pathetic…
NRA4Freedom on December 12, 2007 at 4:11 PM
NRA4Freedom. I don’t care what your alleged justification is–you fully believe that the extermination order was legal, justified, and you want it reinstated. There’s nothing to discuss–you believe that violence is acceptable and preferable when it comes to the LDS church.
I’m just glad you are on the record.
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Again with the lies and twisting of words…
NRA4Freedom on December 12, 2007 at 4:23 PM
I’m lying? Then what does “If you come to missouri, we shall drive you out again” mean? Last time, that involved killings and gunpoint.
You don’t believe that? Then explain how you will “Drive us out again” in a way that doesn’t involve violence.
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 4:28 PM
Dude, you wrote those threats yourself.
Troy Rasmussen on December 12, 2007 at 4:51 PM
LOL! MORE twisting of words! No wonder you people believe twisted “scripture”, you can’t even comprehend what is written right before your eyes…
NRA4Freedom on December 12, 2007 at 5:40 PM
Dude–you say I am wrong? The explain what you meant. So far, those who have read your words read it as a call for violence.
It’s up to you, bub, to explain what you meant. Where I sit, you want to drive Mormons out from the US at gunpoint.
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 5:43 PM
“you people” Oh no he di-ent!
ronsfi on December 12, 2007 at 5:58 PM
“you people” Oh no he di-ent!
ronsfi on December 12, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Nice Chapel reference. By the way have you met the new roomie Lysol. He wants your bed.
sonnyspats1 on December 12, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Dang! I go away for a while, and this is what I come back to!
NRA4Freedom, you are one angry dude.
As for something I didn’t get a chance to answer well last night (morning my time; I had to go):
Then, besides Arians & Mormons (and Ulfilas, by the way, was an Arian and yet produced the wonderful Gothic Bible), is the Coptic Church a Christian cult? How about the Syriac or the Armenian? None of them accepts the Nicene creed and none is in communion with the Orthodox. Nor, as far as that goes, are the Catholics. Here in Greece, Catholics are considered heretics. (In fact they altered the Nicene creed with their filioque.) And the Protestants? Just apostate Catholics. Are you Orthodox?
You can’t just say that, just because a group doesn’t subscribe to an Aristotelian pronouncement done by an argumentative committee some three hundred years after Jesus’ death, that group is a “Christian cult”.
Tzetzes on December 12, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Best lines so far:
and
That’s a funny sounding URL. Does that involve tasing?
and of course
Tzetzes on December 12, 2007 at 7:40 PM
But besides the question of whether or not Jesus & Lucifer are brothers, does anybody know why Satan exists?
Tzetzes on December 12, 2007 at 7:41 PM
Right2Bright (R2B2?), I finally saw, and answered, your posting on a long-ago thread concerning Christianity and polytheism.
Vanceone, you might like to look at it as well.
I’d love to hear both of your responses. (And please, be friends you two! I’m cool with both o’ you’s.)
Tzetzes on December 12, 2007 at 7:45 PM
Tzetzes–It is, indeed, true that Islam regards Christianity as polythestic, and for good reason. They focus on there being three divinities: the Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost. That’s three.
My reply would be that it depends on how you define God. Islam, if I have any understanding of it at all, arose out of a polytheistic culture as well. I cannot really respond to their claims, as it hinges on Muhammad’s visions and their validity.
But I would say, they accept much of the Old testament. The Old testament is filled with God appearing in physical form to the ancients (Jacob wrestled with God, Moses saw God’s face, and Elijah saw the backside of God). Abraham at bethel saw God; indeed I believe that is what “bethel” means.
In other words, I think I’d have to challenge their concept of God.
I might be able to think of something else, but I’m late for an appointment.
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 8:16 PM
Surely not!
Well, “House of God” actually. (Beth-lehem, for example, means “House of Bread”.)
Tzetzes on December 12, 2007 at 8:41 PM
It’s true. Mormons believe Jesus and Satan were literally brothers. Brothers, meaning, God had sex with one of his wives and Jesus was born from it, then again with Satan. Jesus was the first born of all God’s children, and Satan was #2.
I am a former Mormon, temple-endowed, and was a missionary.
Mormons also believe that they will one day become gods themselves. They will be given a portion of the universe to call their own, will have literal sex with their wives and create children to populate this world they made. They will have their own Savior and everything.
Fatrap on December 12, 2007 at 8:48 PM
Despite any possible polytheistic origin in Islam historically (the moon-goddess idea is intriguing but, as the Scots would say, unproven), the Mahometans symchronically are fairly consistent about God’s oneness, as are the Jews, the Aristotelians and a number of postclassical Greek sects (as the Neoplatonists, if I remember and understand them aright).
What our Mahometan friend in the thread is asking however is: how is the Christian concept of a god who appears in different forms, including as his own son (born of a virgin who was, according to Catholics, herself born of a virgin), any different from the Hindoo belief in a single unified godhood that also appears in different forms (such as the Indian “Lord of Hosts”, who’s a manifestation of God and the son of another manifestation of God)?
This Moslem will say “you Christians and you Hindoos are all polytheists. It’s just that the Christians only have three, while you Hindoos have more. You both pose as monotheists by saying your different gods are manifestations of the one God, but that’s disingenuous quibbling; and there’s no qualitative difference between you.”
Tzetzes on December 12, 2007 at 9:00 PM
That’s why I’m confused by the brouhaha about this. It is Mormon Doctrine of the primary level. It is also part of Joseph Smith’s defense of plural marriage. Wilford Woodruff suspended plural marriage under duress of law and made that plain in later addresses after the 1890 Manifesto. Plural marriage is still the most important qualifier of who will be exalted and who will live in on of the lesser heavens without wives or spiritual progeny.
Beto Ochoa on December 12, 2007 at 10:28 PM
Sorry that last sentence was poorly worded.
Plural marriage is still the most important qualifier of exaltation. Those who are sealed to plural wives in this life go on to exist in the highest levels of heaven with multiple wives and progeny becoming Gods themselves.
Those who do not gain plural wives in this life will spend eternity in one of the lesser heavens without wives or spiritual progeny and will be servants to the Gods.
Those who are not Latter Day Saints go to an even lesser realm and those who are heathens to the lowest level.
Beto Ochoa on December 12, 2007 at 10:47 PM
Plural marriage is not a qualifier of exaltation. Marriage in the new and everlasting covenant is, of which plural marriage is a part. So anyone who has been married to one wife on this earth qualifies, mormon or non-mormon. (Non-mormons will have their marriages performed by proxy after they are dead.)
The most important qualifiers haven’t changed in 2000 years:
Faith in Christ
Obey the Commandments
Endure to the End
If you don’t do these, it won’t matter if you married one wife or three dozen.
Sebastian on December 12, 2007 at 10:57 PM
That’s crazy talk. Heathen! Heretic!
sulla on December 12, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Sebastian
Yes, that is the new version but that is not what every LDS prophet including Woodruff taught as revealed, inspired doctrine. In fact, it wasn’t until the 1920′s that it was officially taboo. This sealing the dead stuff is modern doctrine.
Beto Ochoa on December 12, 2007 at 11:17 PM
By the way, plural marrige WAS the new and everlasting covenant. At least until it wasn’t.
Beto Ochoa on December 12, 2007 at 11:20 PM
A good way to understand what Christians believe about the trinity is water.
water = H2O
ice = H2O
steam = H2O
water is not ice nor steam
ice is not water nor steam
steam is not water nor ice
Yet they are all H20. Of course it’s not a perfect analogy but then there couldn’t be one when talking about God.
If the virgin birth bothers you, just think about one cell animals. All of their births are virgin births.
Mojave Mark on December 12, 2007 at 11:22 PM
Is this Thales‘ take on the trinity? ;)
Me, I haven’t got a problem with (let’s call it) theoparthenogenesis.
But, as to the trinity, our Hindoo friend (who first came up in this thread) might very well say “yes, Christian, you are very poetic and wise. We believe the same, but have different names: Brahma is [mutatis mutandis] water, Krishna is water and Shiva is water.”
Then our Mahometan friend tells us, “see Christian, I told you you were a polytheist.”
Tzetzes on December 12, 2007 at 11:42 PM
(And then, his Persian neighbor buts in and says, “I don’t care about all this theological mumbo-jumbo. What I’m really passionate about is women’s clothing!”)
(But don’t let that distract you. Answer the first guy.)
Tzetzes on December 12, 2007 at 11:56 PM
…Well, it’s a quarter after eight a.m. here (GMT+2), so I’m going home.
I’ll come back and check in around 24 hours. (Or, maybe 18.)
Tzetzes on December 13, 2007 at 1:17 AM
Reading is fundamental:
This is exactly what I was talking about. I’m not a Mormon. I said I wasn’t a Mormon…in a direct reply to one of YOUR posts. You’re wrong on so many things in just this thread alone because you’re blinded by hate and the unshakable (but incorrect) belief that you’re right because you say that you’re right that you have lost all credibility to speak on the subject.
I have some of the same doctrinal issues with Mormons that you do…probably more because I have relatives that converted to Mormonism for a while (and were easily able to leave, thankyouverymuch)…but I don’t think they should be driven out of the United States or should be called a cult because there’s some mystical line in the sand that separates the bizarre beliefs that you need to handle dangerous snakes or fake being overcome by gibberish speech to get closer to God and the equally bizarre beliefs of the Mormons.
James on December 13, 2007 at 7:48 AM
T J Green on December 12, 2007 at 7:11 AM
Bravo.
As per the official LDS dogma relating Jesus and Lucifer born via sexual intercourse by God with spriritual wives in the Mormon “pre-existence”, they answer with the Book of Moses. Christians will not find that in the Bible. “Old” doctrines are cast aside for new audiences. I ridicule the current “modern” concept of “old” as well as the ease with which so many would ignore history.
Those relying upon official LDS website entries must realize that EVERY authorized document displayed has been processed through countless edits and revisions. For instance, compare the original “Manifesto” with their online version. The official LDS records have been changed incessantly, and what you read from them online is not what you would read from the original document. The official LDS image is merely a portrait of Dorian Gray.
Today’s youth eschew the past as irrelevant. Young Mormons eschew their pioneering ancestors as irrelevant. In doing so, they also lose their own relevance. Through WWII, Mormons absolutely revered their pioneers’ absolute obedience to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. But children of Mormon baby-boomers have been reared with a totally “improved” revision and have absolutely lost reference with the original reality, having sold out long ago. So which Mormon generation will be right about any Mormon doctrine at their grand reunion in the resurrection? The old Mormon pioneers gave up EVERYTHING to obey God’s command of polygamy, the everlasting covenant, in order to attain glory with/as God and prove to all, including themselves, their obedience to those in authority. Their progeny now deny that it ever happened in their family. What was should not be denied if to be appreciated for what it was. Relative relevance.
The LDS church sells itself to converts as having the monopoly on ETERNAL TRUTH. That LDS eternal nature of truth is concrete during the sell, but plastic after the deal is struck.
Read original documents before denying their content or existence. The truth shall set you free.
MATTHEW 7
7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
28And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
29For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
maverick muse on December 13, 2007 at 10:59 AM
maverick muse: I note you still haven’t answered my question. I note you cannot say one nice thing about the LDS church. And you have, once again, absolutely no freaking clue about the LDS church. The pioneer forefathers are revered very much indeed. Especially by the youth.
So once more, you are caught out in a blatant lie. Maybe it’s time for you to stop claiming you know so much about a church you hate so much. Because 1) You know very little, just what you’ve read on anti-mormon sites and 2) do you think anyone trusts you to be a fair and accurate person on what the LDS church believes? It’s like asking Caiphas what Christians believe.
Why not let Mormons define what they believe? I’m not evangelical, and thus, I don’t go around saying “This is what Evangelicals believe:” and then repeat some doctrine or practice of theirs I can interpret in the worst possible light. Trust me, it’s easy to do so. But it wouldn’t be honest, would it? And you aren’t honest.
Vanceone on December 13, 2007 at 12:07 PM
NRA4Freedom (someone I don’t want to see with a gun in his hand) also hasn’t answered my question about Orthodoxy.
Tzetzes on December 13, 2007 at 9:03 PM
Bigotry?!? For someone calling a duck a duck?
Dig in and read what Mormon’s believe and you will find Mormonism ranks right alongside Scientology. NRA4Freedom has a splattering that outght to raise at least one skeptical eyebrow.
Study the Bible and compare to the Book of Mormon and you will learn that Mormonism is not Christianity.
Read the Bible, you will find that men were left with a written testament and the Holy Spirit after Christ’s departure. Hence, Joe Smith has a problem with his recent revelation.
AZ_Redneck on December 14, 2007 at 6:49 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »