Rather than devoting all of his might, mind, and heart to the well being of the least of the human race, an immature youth presuming the rights of adulthood before age, spends his greatest energies wildly surfing the internet performing his Mormon “mission” work ranting on blogs.

As for “never the twain shall meet” that is Kipling and has everything to do with Islam and nothing to do with Mormons.

without change

compromise

Jesus admonished [his followers] to know the old testament prophets in order to appreciate His fulfillment of God’s entire purpose. Christians accept Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s law. Christians unite in faith and love. To completely condemn all of Christianity in order to exist elitely with God is its own disclaimer.

Dear Maverick Muse:

I don’t think that was in answer to what I said just above, but it does demonstrate the point I make. When Peter & Paul (or Philip, whose work somehow didn’t make the canon, when talking with the Ethiopian) were trying to convince their fellow Jews that Rabbi Joshua was actually the High Priest, Great Prophet and Annointed One who’d been foretold, they used the Jews’ own scriptures and reasoned with them. Some accepted and some didn’t, and those who don’t accept it object that the Christians are misusing Jewish scripture (or are at least misguided in their reading of it).

Mormons use the Old & New Testaments in trying to convince their fellow Christians (and the Mormons consider themselves Christians, so that should be enough of that silly question) that Joseph Smith is a prophet foretold to usher in a new phase of Christianity. Some believe it and some don’t, and those who don’t either object that Mormons are misusing these books or at least interpreting them amiss.

But in the above, you don’t reason at all: you ask the person you’re talking to to start a priori with your conclusion as a premiss. That’s what the Mahometans do, not Aquinas.

Rather than devoting all of his might, mind, and heart to the well being of the least of the human race, an immature youth presuming the rights of adulthood before age, spends his greatest energies wildly surfing the internet performing his Mormon “mission” work ranting on blogs.

maverick muse on December 14, 2007 at 2:18 PM

Who would this be pray tell? No pun intended. Does anyone have a clue who mm is talking about here? As far as this blog goes I don’t see much Mormon “mission” work, and for the most part those who are Mormons, like Vanceone for instance, do not “rant”.

There are a lot of tiresome people who have made anti-Mormonism a mission, and they rant, and rant, and rant.

Ephesians 4
14Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. 15Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. 16From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

In the unity of God’s spirit, Christians of all ages, not merely those alive at the moment, rejoice. Reading Ephesians 4, every one can search their own personal heart and require ALL admonitions of themselves rather than of another. Any proselyte requiring more from another than of themselves knows futility, not hope in Christ.

Merry Christmas!

But I rarely see you talk about them with much vehemence. Instead, you would rather go after Mormons, who DO believe in the divinity of Christ. But that, apparently, is much more dangerous to you.

Once again, you don’t like it, but I am defending my faith from people who are vandalizing the bible, and hi-jacking our most sacred element of faith…

But, the one think I have found, the LDS is to arrogant to understand their attacks on the Christian faith. You want to own it, and it isn’t yours to steal.

right2bright on December 13, 2007 at 2:51 AM

Dude, the Jews could totally say that about Christianity. Rabbi Joshua of the North (”can anything good come out of Nazareth?”) quotes Isaiah (the most popular book of the intertestamental period, as shown by remaining papyri) and claims that he’s the Anointed One. His followers are so bold as to quote the holy Psalms and say that they predict Jesus’ Messiahship (that the great King David is prophecying that a provincial carpenter will become his “Son of David”).

That’s what your Christianity and my Christianity (which are probably rather different) does/do to the Hebrew Bible, and Jews think we’re reading it all wrong. So why are you so upset with the Mormon reading of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament?

Stand up and say it is wrong to baptize dead people, and if you think it is right then defend that and explain why Mormons do not baptize dead Jews.
right2bright on December 13, 2007 at 12:49 AM

According at least to Hitchens (not known for being well inclined to the LDS), Mormons did in fact baptize Jews in the temple and that Jewish groups got angry.

Jonah Goldberg (a yet-to-be-perfected Jew) in an article about Mormons recently said:

Evangelical Christians believe that when the Messiah returns, things won’t go too well for the Jews — two thirds die, one third convert. Gershom Gorenberg, author of The End of Days, once complained to 60 Minutes, “As a Jew, I can’t feel very comfortable with the affections of somebody who looks forward to that scenario.”

Well, boohoo. In the horrible annals of Jewish problems, the fact that a whole bunch of Christians love Jews for the “wrong” reasons has got to rank pretty low. Besides, since presumably Jews don’t believe in Christian prophecy, what’s the problem? If it’s not true, then no harm, no foul. If it is true, well, who are we to argue with God?

I seem to remember something similar during Jesus’ trial. Surely the same principle applies to Mormonism, eh? If it’s right, accept it; if it’s not, it’ll fail by itself.

Fine then rather than making personal attacks, show me where I mis-quoted or my facts were wrong.
So far you have failed…but you are good at name calling, so I give you credit.
I already spanked you once for stepping out of line, don’t make me do it again…you naughty little girl.

right2bright on December 13, 2007 at 1:51 PM

Freaking weirdo!

You have not quoted anyone, least of all Mitt Romney. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that Mitt Romney’s faith has ever impeded his ability to function honorably and wisely as a public servant, or conflict with the founding principles of this great Representative Republic.

Vanceone on December 13, 2007 at 1:40 PM

I know you don’t want to, but many of your academia’s are. As you look at your founder, and realize who he was (if polygamy was so God driven, why hide it from his first wife Emma?), and this will take decades for the realization to set in, the leaders will have to distance themselves from Smith. Simple question, if your Prophet, Kimball, came to you and said that God had told him that he must marry your daughter, you would consent? You would give up your daughter to a man who said God told him to take her as one of his wives? That is the kind of man who you are basing your religion on. That is the kind of man Mitt is putting his faith in….that may seem okay to you, that is scary to me.

Buy Danish on December 13, 2007 at 8:48 AM

Fine then rather than making personal attacks, show me where I mis-quoted or my facts were wrong.
So far you have failed…but you are good at name calling, so I give you credit.
I already spanked you once for stepping out of line, don’t make me do it again…you naughty little girl.

As for “evidence” I note you didn’t say a word about the evidence I proffered. You just completely ignored it (per usual anti-mormon tactics: “Hey, if we ignore the defense completely, we can say they don’t have an answer!”). I said that the Book of Mormon was most likely set in the early Mayan periods. Are you arguing those civilizations didn’t exist?

As for the papyri, perhaps you should listen a bit closer: existing, eyewitness accounts describe scrolls that do not currently exist. Sure, the ones found were part of the collection: but they were not the complete collection.

And the “DNA” thing. *snort* That one has been answered so conclusively that I am surprised people still bring it up–well, no, I’m not. As usual, this attack depends on people not knowing the reply to it.

And no, probably most LDS sites don’t link to many Christian ones (though you’ve haven’t looked very hard: I’ve seen several links to CCER or whichever site it is that has the Early Christian writings). No, LDS authors tend to cite published works by other Christians, not link to websites for the most part.

As for your accusation that the LDS church is trying to move away from Joseph Smith and early leaders, I have one word: nonsense. Yes, there is more scholarly examination of them, but no one has ever claimed they were perfect, and no one has claimed they had all the truth (including them). The church has the principle of “line upon line, precept upon precept”– things only partially understood before become clearer in time.

And no thank you, we have no desire to become a “traditional Christian faith” that claims a God that cannot speak, doesn’t care, and is incomprehensible.

Buy Danish, bitter and stale @ 8:48 a.m.

maverick muse on December 13, 2007 at 11:11 AM

No dear, I am fed up (and bored). Maybe you and r2b could collaborate on a book!

BTW, did you get the part about me not being a Mormon?

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

Why don’t you write a freaking book? Seriously, you might make a buck or two and it could be a cathartic experience for you. You know, kinda like facing your personal demons and confronting them.

Not that I would buy it, but it would keep you busy and you’d have another avenue to drone on and on with your personal obsession with Mormonism, and Mitt Romney in particular.

The bottom line is that Mitt Romney’s character and intellect is off the charts superior to your own, and every time you type a word that truth becomes more and more undeniable.

Vanceone on December 13, 2007 at 1:57 AM

Seems, like every great civilization recorded by man, that some form of remains (usually coins or trade materials) show up. Just wanted to be sure that my sources were accurate.
*
The papyri were embalming information. Joseph made an error. The back of the papri had his writings and notes on the back. They were the book, or so he thought.
Well the DNA of the American Indians don’t look so good. And you must get out and read more. I think your apologists are the ones backtracking. I believe now that the Laminites are no longer the principle part of the Indian race, but now just a part of, courtesy of a little rewriting your Book of Mormon.
I think when you are forced to change a “perfect” book, to fit new evidence, that would be cause for alarm.
Thanks for answering…and no I do not want, nor ever want any physical harm to any one. I attack the doctrine, not the people who have fallen prey.
I never knew much about the “Mormon Trail” and what experiences caused it. I ordered a couple of books. Here is a pretty good review; Persecution. And yes, the author suggests books written by Mormon scholars for added reading. All of my sites I use for research, link back to authentic Mormon sites for confirmation, or single dating. I have never found a Mormon site that links to a Christian site.
Please think seriously about your prophets, I know Smith & Young must have been a brilliant man, but look at their lives, the children they married (average age for marriage in the mid 1800’s was 19.5 yrs old), even your most ardent scholars and believers are starting to understand how wrong they were…http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/is a good starting point to see the direction Mormons are moving towards (this is an LDS site, mostly grad and phd from BYU)
Once again, you don’t like it, but I am defending my faith from people who are vandalizing the bible, and hi-jacking our most sacred element of faith…Jesus Christ (and the biblical trinity). I really wished other religions, besides Christians, would just not attack us from so many different directions. And when we lash back, try to put us down or shut us up. We have lost millions of missionary’s to death from people who want to steal our religion.
But, the one think I have found, the LDS is to arrogant to understand their attacks on the Christian faith. You want to own it, and it isn’t yours to steal.
But, as DNA is more revealed, civilizations are never found, great battles that were fought will be finally proved not to have taken place. As the accurate interpretation of the bible filters down to the LDS (as evidence of the changes in the book of mormon over the years), the LDS church will evolve, it is only 150 years old. When honesty prevails, and the realization that Smith, Young and others were false prophets (as shown now by fact..Adam-God is an example), then the LDS will be able to regroup and reform itself to traditional Christian faith. That will be a great day for you and your brothers and sisters. And a great day for the Christian nation, we can then all celebrate the truth.

I am quite curious. You’ll never convert to the LDS church, most likely, and you’ve said you have no financial interest in bashing it, so I don’t get why you care so much.

To your answers:

1) No one knows, do they? Unlike in the old world, very little writing remains from the new world (as the Spanish destroyed most of it). And there aren’t any road signs. That said, if the Smithsonian DID identify one, wouldn’t you be screaming bloody murder about “endorsing a religion?”

But I’ll tell you where they were, most likely. In Central America, the proto_mayan cultures and thereabouts–Guatemala, the Yucatan peninsula. Plus, a place name found in the Book of Mormon has been identified: NHM, in the arabian peninsula. In addition, the Book of Mormon has a ton of things right that were completely ludicrous when first published but have been vindicated throughout time, such as the use of cement. There’s no road signs saying “welcome to Jerusalem” either. I do recall hearing recently about potentially finding the name of one of the kings mentioned in the Book of Mormon on a stela as well.

2) First of all, what you claim are the documents of the Book of Abraham do not match the descriptions of the parchments Joseph Smith had, so I would disagree that they’ve been found. Second, if you think Joseph Smith made it all up, then please explain how he managed to tap directly into the pre-existing traditions of Abraham that have long since vindicated the writings of the Book of Abraham–traditions that were not available to him when he wrote it.

You may not be aware, but some of your evangelical scholarly buddies have admitted in the last few years that they are losing their battle to declare Mormonism a false religion because the LDS church’s apologetics people has answered their charges consistently and conclusively in many cases. For instance, they don’t have many answers for Chiasmus; for other forms of Hebraic poetry in the Book of Mormon, for the incredible bulls-eye of the Book of Mormon journey across the Arabian peninsula; for the intricate details of Jewish ceremonial life that are taken for granted in the BoM, for numerous other things. The Book of Mormon has a lot of evidence in it’s favor that you, naturally, refuse to address. I don’t provide it, because I’m not here to preach. But it exists. And you anti’s have been curiously silent about much of it.

Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 5:19 PM

I missed your question at the end about that other poster.
I have answered your accusations a few times. Before I answer that one, how about finally answering one that I ask of you. (I give you two choices, choose one)
*
How many Book of Mormon civilizations (the ones unique to the BoM) have been identified by National Geographic or the Smithsonian?
And along those same lines, do you believe that Joseph Smith was given permission to look at the papyri scrolls in an exhibit (1835) and to everyone’s shock, revealed that “one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham (and Smith interpreted them). In October of 1880 The Pearl of Great Price, a collection of writings, which contained the book of Abraham, was recognized as scripture by the Mormon Church. Now that we have been able to decipher them (as of 1966), what did those scrolls really say?

Troy Rasmussen on December 12, 2007 at 1:06 PM

So now Troy, what part of that which I posted is inaccurate?

Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 5:19 PM

Okay, you finally caught me. When you defend your Mormon faith, I admit that I quote your leaders, prophets, covenants accurately. I can see where that would cause you an uneasiness. To be publicly exposed is uncomfortable.
Now, which of my quotes were wrong? If you are ashamed of the men who created your faith, or your prophets,…don’t follow them. If you do follow them, then expect to be confronted with the truth. If I am not stating the truth, then call me on it. Otherwise you are just whining, all you do is bash the conduit…try bashing the people who have stated these things, done these things, or taught you these things.
Stand up, correct the record, tell the world that it was abhorrent for a man to have multiple wives, some as young as 14. Instead you defend him and think it is alright to bargain for a 14 year old bride…live with it or deny it, but don’t get angry for it coming to light. Stand up and say it is wrong to baptize dead people, and if you think it is right then defend that and explain why Mormons do not baptize dead Jews.

Read the whole conversation before coming in here and being an idiot.

nailinmyeye on December 12, 2007 at 11:43 PM

I have read everything, and I’m sick of bigots trying to claim they’re not. Islam is an entirely different monster, and to bring that up as to justify their bigotry against a tame religion in which their only criticism against it is strictly theological will and should be called out.