BuzzFeed: “Romney faces challenge on Mormonism and race”

posted at 8:33 pm on April 10, 2012 by Allahpundit

You’ll get no complaint from the resident atheist about asking tough questions of any faith, especially after Obama took well-deserved heat four years ago over Rev. Wright (mainly from the right but, to a grudging lesser extent, from the media as well). The curiosity in that case was why our great post-partisan healer tolerated “chickens coming home to roost” sermons for 20 years at Trinity. The curiosity in this cycle will be why Mitt and his parents tolerated the LDS practice of barring black Mormons from the priesthood until 1978.

“I want to hear him talk about this,” said [Prof. Marc Lamont] Hill. “I won’t be disingenuous about it. I’m not going to pretend that I believe Mitt Romney is a closet racist… but he needs to contextualize this for us.”…

For the Obama campaign, trying to turn Mitt’s Mormonism against him would be something of a high-wire act, threatening to injure the incumbent should the strategy go awry. But as Democrats seek to galvanize an underwhelmed liberal base, associating racism with Romney — a bland moderate who often comes off as more hapless than villainous — could help boost election-day turnout…

“I think if he were a child when anti-black policies were in place, that would be different,” said Reid. “But he was an adult, active in the ministry of his church, and it’s fair to ask, if the media cares to — and they should — what he thought of those policies at the time. The question is very much legitimate.”

Columbia’s Hill predicts that combined pressure from the left and the religious right will force Romney to give a major speech addressing the faith of his fathers — similar to the one he gave in 2007, “but far more direct” — in which he will proclaim his Christianity, and condemn dogmatic racism.

Follow the link up top and read to the end for Cornel West’s advice, which not only won’t be heeded but I suspect will be ignored by O’s surrogates in direct proportion to how high the unemployment rate rises. Needless to say, Romney’s been getting this question for years; watch the MTP segment below from 2007 (which is included in the BuzzFeed post) to see how he handled it. Kevin Williamson, who wrote about Mormonism recently for “National Review,” warned a few days ago that “Romney had better get used to Mormon attacks,” but judging from how smoothly he handled Russert here five years ago, he is ready. He notes, correctly, that his father marched for civil rights (although never at the same rally as Martin Luther King, as Mitt has occasionally loosely suggested), which undermines the inevitable “racist Romney” messaging that’s coming, and he can argue that leaving the church would have been counterproductive to the goal of changing LDS policy on black priests. A member of the church in good standing might have had more influence in getting that rescinded than an ex-member who’d left in indignation. Follow the link to Williamson’s post for a bit more on that.

The guilt-by-association narrative really only works in politics when the target’s persona somehow conforms to the evil he’s being associated with. Obama never sustained much damage from the Wright thing because most voters just don’t buy that he’s an angry radical. Romney will get the same pass for attacks on his church’s former racial supremacism, I think: Ironically, the perception that he’s robotic and opportunistic, with no passionate “core” of beliefs, inoculates him in part from the idea that he harbors secret hatreds. Can a computer be racist? Well, there you go. But as these stories bubble up in the media, do keep an eye out for how they’re framed by the reporters responsible for them. No top Democrats are going to go on record about this and probably few of them will even be willing to do it anonymously for fear of how bad it’ll look if “senior Democratic officials” are suddenly involved in a religious whispering campaign. Rather, expect a lot of “some say” stories — “some say that Romney’s religion could be problematic,” “some say they’re uncomfortable with the thought of a Mormon president,” etc. That’s the ultimate media cop out, but it’s probably the only device available to them to push this meme in earnest on O’s behalf.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

This is one stupid argument. Is he capable of running this Country better than the current guy? I would say yes, enough said.

DDay on April 11, 2012 at 12:51 PM

You know it isn’t going to be that simple, right? Especially with the current guy claiming to be a Christian despite having spent decades in an un-Christian racist church and sketchy Muslim roots to include going to a school in Indonesia where you had to be Muslim to attend. Obama’s people love the fact that they’ve got an opponent whose faith includes latter day angels, golden plates, and the pinpointing of the second coming to a site in Missouri.

Happy Nomad on April 11, 2012 at 1:01 PM

There is a reason why no Mormon theologists is a noted Greek or Hebrew expert

You are dumber than a post.

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/

…exactly for the reason that you cannot understand the simple analogy that when a King say “we” he is being inclusive of the people, it was a way which they spoke in them thar days. You seen to keep ignoring that simple fact.

Exactly the reason that you cannot understand that the phrase “none beside me” is a statement of preeminence not exclusion.

And you seem not to see where God says he is the only one, no one before or after…

Perfectly aware of those statement of preeminence. But they are not statements of exclusion.

You are obviously not aware of the LDS responses to your pathetic anti-mormonisms.

If I felt is was worth it, would be easy to explain even with my limited knowledge of Greek and Hebrew…but you won’t listen.

Classic projection.

Was he also a liar when He said the Father was in Heaven? That the Father was greater than him?

No…no more than when he stated that he was the only One, that their is none other, not before, not after…it was definitive.

So, how can “the only One” be greater than the other “only one”?

mainly Mormon’s have taken that tact, and that is why no Mormon scholar is a noted ancient language expert

Sorry, but ignorance about “Mormon scholars” isn’t evidence against them.

You have to dig deep to find a scholar that believes the bible supports the claim of poly-theists…

Not that deep.

http://books.google.com/books/about/The_great_angel.html?id=y63GE5Tw3KMC

You should expand your reading…it would help you in your faith.

right2bright on April 11, 2012 at 12:29 PM

You should expand your reading period.

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Any Mormons out there want to take on my questions I asked at 12:50?

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 12:57 PM

I’m going to lunch, but I’ll get to it later. In the meantime would you mind elaborating on what other religions he tried to start? I’ve never heard that one before.

The Hop on April 11, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Any Mormons out there want to take on my questions I asked at 12:50?

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 12:57 PM

SauerKraut,

I thought I had heard them all, but this “Joseph Smith tried to start other religions” canard is a new one to me. Please cite chapter and verse, as I have no way to respond to this new trumped-up claim.

As to the issue of why it would be translated into 16th Century English, have you considered that the language of the Bible would be what people, even uneducated rural farmers in upstate New York, would consider “scriptural” English. To me it makes perfect sense that it would be translated that way. You apparently don’t agree, so be it.

Longing4Lincoln on April 11, 2012 at 1:04 PM

There is a reason why no Mormon theologists is a noted Greek or Hebrew expert…

right2bright on April 11, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Excluding this guy, of course.

http://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/about/

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 1:04 PM

This is one stupid argument. Is he capable of running this Country better than the current guy? I would say yes, enough said.

DDay on April 11, 2012 at 12:51 PM

I’m with you DDay.

He’s going to be an excellent President, regardless of the whining and bitching going on from some HA commenters.

Romney’s got a heart of gold tablets in a Top hat. ;-)

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Or for that matter, what – exactly – is going on when Christ is baptised? Is the Triune God just putting on an extravagant show?

Longing4Lincoln on April 11, 2012 at 12:36 PM

For some odd reason religions need forerunners to predict their arrival. The gospel writers went overboard to make their Christ the result of the old narrative. For the most part this does not work well since the later authors of the canonical gospels seem to have had problems with their mastery of Hebrew and its translation into Greek. But John the Baptist serves to introduce the narrative. Islam pretends that these same books, distorted by the Jews, predict the arrival of Muhammad and, more recently, Bahai’s had their John the Baptist “The Bab” who foresaw their prophet (Baha’u’llah (the 12th Imam),

As to Christianity, the Trinity is only one of its problems. Since Jesus=god ===> Jesus = Yahweh and is the author of Leviticus which, along with its prescribed punishments for violating the 10 Commandments (death for just about everything) and this god did promise to never revise the law. However, most Christians do pretend that their Christ renounced the rules he wrote. I guess we are supposed to believe that god, like the Democrat view of Supreme court justices, is supposed to “grow” in office.

Consistency would have been easier if Christianity did not try to carry the baggage of the Torah. And to some extent, Mormonism would be better off without the contortions necessary to attach itself to Christianity.

Of course, as an Atheist, I’d rather see them all go and that will probably eventually happen.

Annar on April 11, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Hmmmmmmmm…..but Jospeph Smith’s own handwritten account of his first vision doesn’t mention seeing God the Father and His Son. It’s only later that he added this.

1826 – handwritten description of fist vision of 1924 describing no vision of God and Son.

1832 – vision of Christ remembered from first “vision” describing 10 year sequence from 1824 – 1830 leading to Book of Mormon. Yep – you read it write. 1824 – 1830 equaled 10 years to Joseph Smith.

1835 – original vision of 1824 included a visit by an angel, but No God the Father, or Son.

1838 – vision of God the Father and Christ remembered from first vision…..

oldroy on April 11, 2012 at 1:00 PM

And the accounts of the Apostle Pauls theopany are all the same.

Oh wait.

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Happy Nomad on April 11, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Lets take it one step further. If your father is a Muslim, then guess what, so are you. The only way to leave the faith is through death. Mr. Obama is live and well and was also elected President of the United States. This is why I don’t concern myself over Mr. Romney’s religious affiliation. This will not end well for the Left if they chose to pursue this line of attack. Remember, America was built on freedom of Religion.

DDay on April 11, 2012 at 1:11 PM

I thought you were the expert on my beliefs. You could probably explain it to yourself better than I could.

We’ll let Joseph Smith tell us:

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God [anyhow]–three in one and one in three. . .It is curious organization… All are crammed into one God according to sectarianism (Christian faith). It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God–he would be a giant or a monster. (Joseph Smith, Teachings, 372)

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! . . . 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. . . . He was once a man like us; yea that God himself, the Father dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did. – Joseph Smith – Teachings 321

FIFY….

oldroy on April 11, 2012 at 1:11 PM

I was going to stick my nose in and dispute the false notions that are being spewed about the Mormon faith. But I have been having such a fun time reading all the venom . . . and Gunlock Bill, you are the MAN!

We can’t change those that are not willing to change, but reasonable people will read your words and feel the sincerity. Way to go brother!

DuctTapeMyBrain on April 11, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Anybody really think Romney is a racist? I would rather have a Mormon as President than four more years of Obama. Mormons are not trying to destroy the constitution. Can’t say the same for Liberals/Socialists.

But of course lets make this the big issue of the campaign.

WyoMike on April 11, 2012 at 1:14 PM

oldroy on April 11, 2012 at 1:00 PM

The same sort of thing is true with respect to Paul’s differing accounts ‘vision’ of Christ.

Annar on April 11, 2012 at 1:14 PM

You have to dig deep to find a scholar that believes the bible supports the claim of poly-theists…

right2bright on April 11, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Not that deep.

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/

You should expand your reading…it would help you.

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Of course, as an Atheist, I’d rather see them all go and that will probably eventually happen.

Annar on April 11, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Ain’t gonna happen. So long as people are mortal, they will wonder where they came from and where they go after they die. Your religion just doesn’t offer very satisfying answers to those questions.

Longing4Lincoln on April 11, 2012 at 1:18 PM

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! . . . 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. . . . He was once a man like us; yea that God himself, the Father dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did. – Joseph Smith – Teachings 321

FIFY….

oldroy on April 11, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Well, help me out here cuz I don’t see the problem.

If the gulf between God and man is impassable (you know that creator vs. created thingy).

Then Jesus being God, never could become a man. Yet the scriptures are clear that he was a man.

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Of course, as an Atheist, I’d rather see them all go and that will probably eventually happen.

Annar on April 11, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Ain’t gonna happen. So long as people are mortal, they will wonder where they came from and where they go after they die. Your religion just doesn’t offer very satisfying answers to those questions.

Longing4Lincoln on April 11, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Like the idea of convergence in Mathematics, after a while your close enough for all practical purposes. Even today there are still people who believe that Poseidon is churning the seas. Such things never completely die.

Annar on April 11, 2012 at 1:24 PM

DuctTapeMyBrain on April 11, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Thanks brother.

I do my best.

I find the ignorance of those who propose to school us po ignirt mormunz to be humorous but troubling.

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 1:25 PM

This is one stupid argument. Is he capable of running this Country better than the current guy? I would say yes, enough said.

DDay on April 11, 2012 at 12:51 PM

+1.

talkingpoints on April 11, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 1:23 PM

In programming we call this a circular reference. You can’t claim we need redemption provided by Christ, if God the Father was man and needed redemption also. Where does it start and end? Are we just at a reference point in time where the God we know is just relative to our time and a couple generations from now, others will know another God? It just goes in circles. This is far closer to Hindu theology than Christian.

Also – the reference to dwelling “on an earth”, not this earth….but “on an earth”. Help me out, cuz I’m not ready to make that leap of faith to believe in billions of other earths either.

I don’t think people are saying they won’t vote for Romney at this point because he is Mormon. We’ve had knock down, drag out arguments about that over the past few months. Most of his detractors, even me, are resigned to voting for him rather than keeping what we’ve got now.

But I’ve pointed out for quite a while, that although it isn’t going to be fair, the media will rape and pillage Romney over his Mormonism. This is only the very beginning. They won’t even feel a tad bit conflicted about it. He’s likely going to have to explain his Mormonism at some point. Like it or not, he isn’t Baptist or Methodist or Catholic, he is Mormon. If it is appropriate for us to ask questions of Obamba’s belief system, then turn about is fair play.

And at the same time Obamba may get a pass on his belief system from the media. I hope not, but he probably will.

oldroy on April 11, 2012 at 1:39 PM

“Romney faces challenge on Mormonism and race”

Only if you don’t know the history of the Romney family and the civil rights movement.

Mitt Romney’s father was a champion of the civil rights movement and rebuffed the pressure of the Mormon church for him to tone down his civil rights rhetoric.

If the Obama campaign wants to go down that road it will blow up on them. Civil rights was a major area of disagreement between Mitt Romney’s father and the Mormon church.

crosspatch on April 11, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Civil rights was a major area of disagreement between Mitt Romney’s father and the Mormon church.

crosspatch on April 11, 2012 at 1:41 PM

I was with you up until this point. The Mormon Church has long been an advocate of equal civil and human rights for all. From Wikipedia:

In 1958, Joseph Fielding Smith published Answers to Gospel Questions which stated “No church or other organization is more insistent than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that the negroes should receive all the rights and privileges that can possibly be given to any other in the true sense of equality as declared in the Declaration of Independence.” He continues to say they should not be barred from any type of employment or education, and should be free “to make their lives as happy as it is possible without interference from white men, labor unions or from any other source.”[52] In the 1963 General Conference, Hugh B. Brown stated: “it is a moral evil for any person or group of persons to deny any human being the rights to gainful employment, to full educational opportunity, and to every privilege of citizenship”. He continued: “We call upon all men everywhere, both within and outside the church, to commit themselves to the establishment of full civil equality for all of God’s children. Anything less than this defeats our high ideal of the brotherhood of man.”[52]

Longing4Lincoln on April 11, 2012 at 1:55 PM

In programming we call this a circular reference.

Oh, this should be fun.

You can’t claim we need redemption provided by Christ, if God the Father was man and needed redemption also.

WOW!! Good thing NO ONE claimed God the Father needed redemption.

Where does it start and end?

It doesn’t.

Are we just at a reference point in time where the God we know is just relative to our time and a couple generations from now, others will know another God?

Don’t know. Make no claim to knowing. Not sure why we need to know.

It just goes in circles.

So? Is linear, by default, more preferred than circular?

This is far closer to Hindu theology than self proclaimed orthodox, historic Christian.

Clarified for you.

Also – the reference to dwelling “on an earth”, not this earth….but “on an earth”. Help me out, cuz I’m not ready to make that leap of faith to believe in billions of other earths either.

Your problem, not mine.

I don’t think people are saying they won’t vote for Romney at this point because he is Mormon. We’ve had knock down, drag out arguments about that over the past few months. Most of his detractors, even me, are resigned to voting for him rather than keeping what we’ve got now.

Ok.

But I’ve pointed out for quite a while, that although it isn’t going to be fair, the media will rape and pillage Romney over his Mormonism.

So?

This is only the very beginning. They won’t even feel a tad bit conflicted about it.

Ok.

He’s likely going to have to explain his Mormonism at some point.

What? For the bigots? They can go pound sand.

Like it or not, he isn’t Baptist or Methodist or Catholic, he is Mormon.

Ok, so bigotry against Mormons is the only acceptable kind?

Do you really think that it is just Mormons they are going to go after?

I think they hate all religions accept liberalism.

If it is appropriate for us to ask questions of Obamba’s belief system, then turn about is fair play.

I could care less about what Obama believes. It is his actions that bother me.

And at the same time Obamba may get a pass on his belief system from the media. I hope not, but he probably will.

oldroy on April 11, 2012 at 1:39 PM

I am sure they will try to give him a pass while attacking believers (Mormons in particular). We will see if they are successful.

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Civil rights was a major area of disagreement between Mitt Romney’s father and the Mormon church.

crosspatch on April 11, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Sorry, but you are in error here.

The LDS Church did NOT oppose civil rights.

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Also – the reference to dwelling “on an earth”, not this earth….but “on an earth”. Help me out, cuz I’m not ready to make that leap of faith to believe in billions of other earths either.

oldroy on April 11, 2012 at 1:39 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9170683/New-life-in-space-hope-after-billions-of-habitable-planets-found-in-Milky-Way.html

Mockingjay on April 11, 2012 at 1:58 PM

You are aware that Mormons are Christian right? They believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God who came to earth to conquer sin and death, and that they believe in the resurrection of the dead and acceptance into the kingdom of heaven. I know, totally off the wall right? It’s a good thing that “mainline Christian” denominations don’t believe any of this stuff, right?

Trafalgar on April 11, 2012 at 8:09 AM

Ummmm. Mormon founder on Jesus Christ:

“Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet…When they can get rid of me, the devil will also go.” (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 408, 409) [Whole sermon click here.]

- Joseph Smith: founder, prophet, seer, and revelator of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Portia46 on April 11, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Do you really think that it is just Mormons they are going to go after?

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 1:55 PM

To answer my own question I submit this,

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/god-2012-president-campaign.html

If non-Mormon Christians think this is only going to be about Mormons think again.

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet…When they can get rid of me, the devil will also go.” (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 408, 409)

- Joseph Smith: founder, prophet, seer, and revelator of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Portia46 on April 11, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Joseph Smith produced more scripture than, Paul, John, Peter, or Jesus.

So, what is the problem with that statement?

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 2:14 PM

@The Hop as sweet as you seem to be, I really don’t think you’re overly well versed in the mormon church history. Not the history as taught by the church but what actually happened. I wouldn’t stress over it unless you want to ask yourself why there needed to be changes in the first place. What the mormons have done is very notable, but at the foundation is a very rickety structure that requires active disbelief just to maintain.

Zekecorlain on April 11, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Joseph Smith produced more scripture than, Paul, John, Peter, or Jesus.

So, what is the problem with that statement?

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Have fun on “Kolob”

tetriskid on April 11, 2012 at 2:26 PM

thank you, right2bright.

May God bless you always.

Elisa on April 11, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Joseph Smith produced more scripture than, Paul, John, Peter, or Jesus.

So, what is the problem with that statement?

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 2:14 PM

There is a little more to the story

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Narcissism/Did_Joseph_Smith_%27boast%27_of_keeping_the_Church_intact

Mockingjay on April 11, 2012 at 2:29 PM

John 1:1-3

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, AND THE WORD WAS GOD.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.
. . .”

Elisa on April 11, 2012 at 2:30 PM

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! . . . 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. . . . He was once a man like us; yea that God himself, the Father dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did. – Joseph Smith – Teachings 321
FIFY….

oldroy on April 11, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Well, help me out here cuz I don’t see the problem.

If the gulf between God and man is impassable (you know that creator vs. created thingy).

Then Jesus being God, never could become a man. Yet the scriptures are clear that he was a man.

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Coming late to this discussion and busy with tax returns this week, I don’t have time to go into all the incorrect statements you have made on this thread.

(example: That the New Testament Christians did not believe in the Trinity. They did. That the Book of Revelation was not the last book written chronologically. It was. While the New Testament books were not written in their present order, Revelation was the last one written and all Christians (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant, including non-denominational Christians) believe that all public Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.)

For all you have written here trying to say that Mormon beliefs can still allow them to be categorized as traditional Christians, this post of yours shows to any Christian why you are wrong.

No traditional Christian (Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, including non-denominational Christians) could ever read that statement from Joseph Smith and find no problem with it.

The Bible and Sacred Oral Tradition have always told us that Jesus Christ always was God, being one with God the Father from all time. And God the Father always was the one and only true God and always will be.

You do not have to agree with me about the nature of God. Mormons are very good people and clearly love Jesus and follow many of Jesus Christ’s teachings. And God loves them, as He loves all men whom He created.

But your beliefs do not fall in line with traditional Christianity.

So you can talk all you want about what you personally consider Christianity to be, but that does not make it so. From the beginning centuries of the Church to today, Christians believed that God was not created and that He alone is God. There are no other Gods and we will never become gods. We can become spiritually one with God and behold His glory one day and be “like” God. We abide in God and God in us. But that is it. We do not become God and we certainly do not become some other separate God. And Jesus Christ was not created by God the Father.

You may believe that. That is fine. But Christians do not.

There is no further discussion possible to convince Christians otherwise.

PS There is no impassable chasm between men and God. God can do all things and He has and does breach the divide men created between themselves and God. That fact does not prove Mormon beliefs.

Elisa on April 11, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Back to taxes.

Elisa on April 11, 2012 at 2:34 PM

John 1:1-3

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, AND THE WORD WAS GOD.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.
. . .”

Elisa on April 11, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Which begs some questions.

“In the beginning” of what?

Eternity has no beginning.

Also, if you want to look at the Greek, (oh, wait, can us ignirt mormunz even do that?) you get a different impression all together.

En archE en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ho theos kai theos en ho logos

In beginning was the word and the word was toward the god and god was the word.

Following is a short list of translations whose translators have understood the issues inherent in correctly translating John 1:1:

The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text
1808, LONDON
Rendering: “…and the word was a god

The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History, According to the Four Evangelists
1829, BALTIMORE (by John S. Thompson)
Rendering: “…and the Logos was a god

The Emphatic Diaglott
1864, NEW YORK, LONDON (by Benjamin Wilson)
Rendering: “…and a god was the Word

The Bible – An American Translation
1935, CHICAGO (by J.M.P. Smith and E.J. Goodspeed)
Rendering: “…and the Word was divine

New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures
1950, BROOKLYN (by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.)
Rendering: “…and the Word was a god

Das Evangelium nach Johannes
1975, GOTTINGEN (GERMANY) (by Sigfried Schulz)
“…und ein Gott (oder, Gott von Art) war das Wort”
Rendering: “…and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word

Das Evangelium nach Johannes
1978, BERLIN (GERMANY)(by Johannes Schneider)
“…und goettlichen Wesens war das Wort”
Rendering: “…and god-like sort was the Word

Das Evangelium nach Johannes
1979, WURZBURG (GERMANY) (by Johannes Schneider)
“…und ein Gott war das Wort”
Rendering: “…and a god was the Word

Enjoy!

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Also, if you want to look at the Greek, (oh, wait, can us ignirt mormunz even do that?) you get a different impression all together.

I dunno, can you without a magic rock?

tetriskid on April 11, 2012 at 2:44 PM

So you can talk all you want about what you personally consider Christianity to be, but that does not make it so.

Elisa on April 11, 2012 at 2:33 PM

We were talking about what a “Christian” is, not about “historic” Christianity is or was.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Christian

Chris·tian (krschn)
adj.
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus’s teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

Mormons are Christian.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/christian

Definition of CHRISTIAN
1
a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

Mormons are Christian.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/christian

Chris·tian
   [kris-chuhn]
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.
3. of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.
4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.
5. decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.
EXPAND
noun
7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.

Mormons are Christian.

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Joseph Smith produced more scripture than, Paul, John, Peter, or Jesus.

So, what is the problem with that statement?

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Joseph Smith did not produce any scripture for the bible(God’s word). He produced his own scripture for his own “bible”.

Revelation 22
18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

I do believe that Joseph Smith may have actually seen a “being of light” who told him how to go about “teaching” the “real truth”, but that being was not God as he was told, but was the great deceiver himself, satan.
Be wary of what God’s word says all those who follow this deceit.

2 Corinthians 11:14
14And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Sterling Holobyte on April 11, 2012 at 2:51 PM

I don’t have time to go into all the incorrect statements you have made on this thread.

Elisa on April 11, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Ok, so why don’t you just assert that they are incorrect and then leave?

Oh, wait.

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Mormons are Christian.

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 2:50 PM

We do not believe in and accept the same Christ, then.
My Christ:
Is not satan’s “brother”.
Was not an ordinary man “first” and “then” through his holiness and righteousness “became” a god.
Did not proclaim that you needed to have many wives in order to go to heaven.
Did not proclaim that blacks bore the mark of Cain.

But it is true as some have said that these issues are just meant to get Obama re-elected by diverting us from the problems in America right now.
Do I want a mormon president? No.
But I want a muslim president who is systematically destroying everything we love about this country even less.
End of story.

Sterling Holobyte on April 11, 2012 at 3:00 PM

@Zekecorlain
Thanks for calling me sweet, I think you’re awesome. As to telling me that I’m not well-versed in the history of my church, what exactly do you mean by that. I’ve heard from all sorts of people that I seem like such a nice person, but then, in a condescending tone, that I must be easily fooled because my church leaders are hiding all sorts of secrets from me. Tell me what you think I don’t know, because I have studied differing perspectives on the history of my church.

The Hop on April 11, 2012 at 3:00 PM

I think you guys are kind of missing the point from the Obama perspective. The “Momonism and race” thing. Obama is going to attempt to resurrect a 35year old policy of the Mormon church and attempt to time warp that to the present and slap it on Romney.

The problem is that it isn’t going to work because the Romney family was one of the major champions of civil rights in this country AND directly opposed Mormon church doctrine on civil rights to the point where the Counsil of the Twelve Apostles decided they had to have a little talk with George Romney. Romney stood his ground and refused to back down on the issue of civil rights while opposing Barry Goldwater in 1964 on the grounds of civil rights.

crosspatch on April 11, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Sterling Holobyte on April 11, 2012 at 2:51 PM

So, according to this,

http://www.biblestudytools.com/resources/guide-to-bible-study/order-books-new-testament.html

AND this,

http://www.questions-answers.org/e-files/e-chread.txt

John and the epistles of John are not scripture.

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 3:04 PM

That the Obama campaign might take this tack is illustrative that they do not understand US political history of that period and by attempting to go there, will walk right into a Romney strong point.

crosspatch on April 11, 2012 at 3:05 PM

And all this talk of Joseph Smith and various religious doctrine is beside the point anyway. We are electing a President, not a Prelate.

crosspatch on April 11, 2012 at 3:08 PM

I have a few genuine, non-rhetorical questions about Mormonism.

1) One of the main concepts of Mormonism that I find difficult has to do with the concept of worship. It appears that Mormons hold to some form of theosis, man becoming God. (And here I pre-emptively note that the Athanasian/Eastern Orthodox concept of theosis is quite different.) Scripture repeatedly reinforces this idea that we aren’t to worship anyone apart from God (which presumably Mormons would understand as God the Father), yet LDS teaching is that we will become precisely as God the Father is today. So in this vein, my questions are

a) What is it that distinguishes God the Father from us,
making Him worthy of worship? Was He always worthy of
worship?
b) Are we worthy of worship now?
c) At what point will we too be worthy of worship, if ever?
d) What bearing, if any, will the prohibition against the
worship of “other gods” have against the worship we
presumably will be worthy of receiving, if that is the
case?

2) On the subject of ontology, I have two semi-related questions.

a) It appears that LDS theology holds that God is of the same
species as we are, if not at the same level of
development. Is my understanding accurate? If so, was
God the Father created at some point, i.e. the product of
a sexual union like Jesus?
b) If God the Father was at some point in the same
ontological stage of development as we are now, what are
we to make of His insistence in Scripture that He does not
change (presumably an ontological statement)?

3) Will Christ’s death be sufficient atonement for the sins of future worlds Mormons believe they will populate, or will the death of another redeemer be necessary?

Thanks for any answers in advance.

Nom de Boom on April 11, 2012 at 3:28 PM

I have a few genuine, non-rhetorical questions about Mormonism.

All snark aside, a religious website might be a better venue for serious discussions on those issues. The quality of the answers you get might be a lot better and it would be more topical there.

crosspatch on April 11, 2012 at 3:41 PM

All snark aside, a religious website might be a better venue for serious discussions on those issues. The quality of the answers you get might be a lot better and it would be more topical there.

crosspatch on April 11, 2012 at 3:41 PM

I’m interested in a layman’s understanding of these things, and I’m also pretty sure I’m within the topic of this thread.

Nom de Boom on April 11, 2012 at 3:44 PM

a) What is it that distinguishes God the Father from us, making Him worthy of worship?

He is complete/perfect, we are not.

Was He always worthy of
worship?

As far as we know.

b) Are we worthy of worship now?

No.

c) At what point will we too be worthy of worship, if ever?

Don’t know exactly. But Jesus promised the Philadephians that they would be worshiped, see Rev 3:9.

d) What bearing, if any, will the prohibition against the
worship of “other gods” have against the worship we
presumably will be worthy of receiving, if that is the
case?

If you look at “God” as being a family of divine perfected and glorified beings rather than a single entity, you will have a better understanding.

2) On the subject of ontology, I have two semi-related questions.

a) It appears that LDS theology holds that God is of the same
species as we are, if not at the same level of
development. Is my understanding accurate?

I would say so.

If so, was
God the Father created at some point, i.e. the product of
a sexual union like Jesus?

Jesus, being a product of a sexual union is NOT official doctrine.

But, regardless. Jesus, at least according to his own statement, followed the pattern set by the Father.

b) If God the Father was at some point in the same
ontological stage of development as we are now, what are
we to make of His insistence in Scripture that He does not
change (presumably an ontological statement)?

Why presume it to be ontological?

Why not presume it to be character?

3) Will Christ’s death be sufficient atonement for the sins of future worlds Mormons believe they will populate, or will the death of another redeemer be necessary?

Nom de Boom on April 11, 2012 at 3:28 PM

As we understand it, Christ’s death is sufficient for all of Christ’s creations. Anything more or less than this is pure speculation.

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 3:56 PM

I have a few genuine, non-rhetorical questions about Mormonism.

All snark aside, a religious website might be a better venue for serious discussions on those issues. The quality of the answers you get might be a lot better and it would be more topical there.

crosspatch on April 11, 2012 at 3:41 PM

A good place to go would be,

http://www.mormondialogue.org/forum/11-general-discussions/

But anywhere you go on the net, other than officially sanctioned sites, will have detractors to muddy the water.

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 3:59 PM

a) What is it that distinguishes God the Father from us,
making Him worthy of worship? Was He always worthy of
worship?

God the Father is our Creator and He is perfect, His ultimate goal is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man through His Son Jesus Christ. As far as we know, and certainly as pertaining to us, His creations, He has always been worthy of worship.

b) Are we worthy of worship now?

No.

c) At what point will we too be worthy of worship, if ever? What bearing, if any, will the prohibition against the
worship of “other gods” have against the worship we
presumably will be worthy of receiving, if that is the
case?

I haven’t heard any official doctrine from the church on that. Frankly, what really matters to us now is to repent so that we can be saved through Christ and follow the teachings of Christ. We definitely couldn’t ever be worthy of worship from each other. The Father is our Creator, The Son is our Savior, we are all dependent upon them, not anybody else.

2) On the subject of ontology, I have two semi-related questions.

a) It appears that LDS theology holds that God is of the same
species as we are, if not at the same level of
development. Is my understanding accurate? If so, was
God the Father created at some point, i.e. the product of
a sexual union like Jesus?
b) If God the Father was at some point in the same
ontological stage of development as we are now, what are
we to make of His insistence in Scripture that He does not
change (presumably an ontological statement)?

3) Will Christ’s death be sufficient atonement for the sins of future worlds Mormons believe they will populate, or will the death of another redeemer be necessary?

We don’t know any of those details. Like I said before, the most important thing we need in this life is to be saved through Christ’s Everlasting Atonement. We’ve been given an idea of the overall plan God has for us, but the details aren’t necessary at this point.

The Hop on April 11, 2012 at 3:59 PM

1) One of the main concepts of Mormonism that I find difficult has to do with the concept of worship. It appears that Mormons hold to some form of theosis, man becoming God. (And here I pre-emptively note that the Athanasian/Eastern Orthodox concept of theosis is quite different.) Scripture repeatedly reinforces this idea that we aren’t to worship anyone apart from God (which presumably Mormons would understand as God the Father), yet LDS teaching is that we will become precisely as God the Father is today. So in this vein, my questions are

a) What is it that distinguishes God the Father from us,
making Him worthy of worship? Was He always worthy of
worship?

God is Perfect. He does not err. The same can hardly be said of us. It is, however, interesting to note that the same could be said of Jesus Christ, though he was a man or “made flesh.”

b) Are we worthy of worship now?

(I have a hard time believing that this is a sincere question, but,) No. See “a.” above. Particularly as it relates to Christ.

c) At what point will we too be worthy of worship, if ever?

By whom? If you mean by other members of the fallen human race, then the answer is never (though don’t tell that to a Catholic). As for others worshiping us. That will happen – if ever – when we are perfected as Christ was perfected.

d) What bearing, if any, will the prohibition against the worship of “other gods” have against the worship we presumably will be worthy of receiving, if that is the case?

See “c.” above. As I noted, none of our peers will ever worship us.

2) On the subject of ontology, I have two semi-related questions.

a) It appears that LDS theology holds that God is of the same
species as we are, if not at the same level of
development. Is my understanding accurate? If so, was
God the Father created at some point, i.e. the product of
a sexual union like Jesus?

In short, yes, though you obviously need to understand more of the theology to understand what being “created” is. We believe that the intelligences (an intelligence is to a spirit as a spirit is to a body) are co-eternal with God.

b) If God the Father was at some point in the same
ontological stage of development as we are now, what are
we to make of His insistence in Scripture that He does not
change (presumably an ontological statement)?

Good question. I think this statement is limited to his state of Godhood. Having achieved Godhood, he is unchanging, as he is now perfected, and cannot improve or change.

3) Will Christ’s death be sufficient atonement for the sins of future worlds Mormons believe they will populate, or will the death of another redeemer be necessary?

Presumably, when we achieve perfection, we will follow the Plan established by God, and provide a Savior for our Spirit children.

Longing4Lincoln on April 11, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Longing4Lincoln on April 11, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Thanks, that was helpful. I’m really not trying to debate here. I’ve just always found it more enlightening to speak to lay people about their religious beliefs.

Nom de Boom on April 11, 2012 at 4:07 PM

If you look at “God” as being a family of divine perfected and glorified beings rather than a single entity, you will have a better understanding.

Hmm, that’s an interesting take on it. So what would be a good rule of thumb for distinguishing between passages that speak about God the Father, as opposed to the family?

b) If God the Father was at some point in the same
ontological stage of development as we are now, what are
we to make of His insistence in Scripture that He does not
change (presumably an ontological statement)?

Why presume it to be ontological?

Why not presume it to be character?

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 3:56 PM

I guess that’s my Christian default. Christianity (well, the non-LDS version, anyway) has particularly emphasized the transcendence of God, part of which has to do with the fact that He is so different from us. We’re a metaphor of Him, where I’m now thinking LDS conceives of that ontological relationship as more of a synonym. I can see why character would be the fallback in the latter belief system though, because there isn’t really any other sharp distinction between God and man. God’s perfectedness is the distinguishing factor, it would seem.

Nom de Boom on April 11, 2012 at 4:16 PM

I guess that’s my Christian default. Christianity (well, the non-LDS version, anyway) has particularly emphasized the transcendence of God, part of which has to do with the fact that He is so different from us.

Nom de Boom on April 11, 2012 at 4:16 PM

And just out of curiosity to you, what do you make of these verses from the first chapter of Genesis?

26 ¶And God said, Let aus bmake cman in our dimage, after our elikeness: and let them have fdominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own aimage, in the image of God created he him; male and bfemale created he them.

Longing4Lincoln on April 11, 2012 at 4:20 PM

It’s crazy to me to hear people say they will not vote for Romney because he is a Mormon. I dont have a lithmus test on religion of people I vote for. I judge them by their character and values. Does anyone have issues with a Mormon’s value system? Just because they dont believe in the same church as you do? There is difference in all churches. Why do you think there were so many protestant churches breaking away from the Catholic Church? They all have differences. I’m hoping this is the view of a minority fringe. Let’s unify and beat Obama, people!

WyoMike on April 11, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Longing4Lincoln on April 11, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Part metaphorical resemblance (we’re a trope of God), part shared set of characteristics (reason, etc.). Not a literal one-to-one reproduction.

Nom de Boom on April 11, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Gunlock Bill

As in Gunlock, Utah? Sort of Veyo-ish?

crosspatch on April 11, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Nom de Boom on April 11, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Fair enough, though I think my point is clear. I read “image” and “likeness” to mean just that. You read it in a more nuanced way that comports with your understanding of God’s nature. It is no coincidence that there are thousands of Christian denominations. The bible is so open to interpretation that it would be impossible to get universal agreement on any number of doctrinal viewpoints. Incidentally, that is what makes the LDS belief in a modern prophet (as well as the Catholic’s claim to continuing authority) so helpful. Questions of the meaning of a document compiled 1800 years ago can be answered specifically.

Longing4Lincoln on April 11, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Hmm, that’s an interesting take on it. So what would be a good rule of thumb for distinguishing between passages that speak about God the Father, as opposed to the family?

I let the context guide me.

I guess that’s my Christian default. Christianity (well, the non-LDS version, anyway) has particularly emphasized the transcendence of God, part of which has to do with the fact that He is so different from us.

That is understandable.

And yet, Jesus, who came to show us God by his actions and character, while in the mortal flesh was not ontologically the same as the Father (as you understand the Father to be).

So, how did Jesus NOT change while going from the pre-Mortal God of Israel to the mortal human, to the post resurrected glorified divine being, other than his character?

After all it is to Jesus that unchanging is attributed. (See Heb. 13:8)

We’re a metaphor of Him, where I’m now thinking LDS conceives of that ontological relationship as more of a synonym. I can see why character would be the fallback in the latter belief system though, because there isn’t really any other sharp distinction between God and man. God’s perfectedness is the distinguishing factor, it would seem.

Nom de Boom on April 11, 2012 at 4:16 PM

I am glad that you are attempting to see things from our point of view. It shows that you really are sincere in attempting to understand what we really believe.

I applaud you sir.

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 4:54 PM

As in Gunlock, Utah? Sort of Veyo-ish?

crosspatch on April 11, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Gunlock, Utah, was named after William (Gunlock Bill) Hamlin. He got the nickname because he was both a Gunsmith and a Locksmith.

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Not that deep.

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/

You should expand your reading…it would help you.

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Yeah, you and the other guy are household words to acadamia…good grief, like I said, you have to dig deep. You proved my point.
I can google and find the “flat earth society”…gracious.

Btw, I notice you can’t resist calling me names…that must make you feel good, does it, kind of neat doing that behind a computer, huh?

This is one of my favorites from you, this line of “reasoning” as if it is the only occasion in the bible, but than with all of your “experts” you cite, this is probably all you have been given.

Perfectly aware of those statement of preeminence. But they are not statements of exclusion.

I spent a masters work on just two words of the bible…Ego eimi (“ego eimi ho ohn” in the Septuagint)…CARM has a pretty good explanation…lay term, it’s the present tense, not past tense. As big of problem for the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who also change the meaning of the words to fit their beliefs.

Just keep in mind:

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, 345).

This is why it is important…Mormon’s think that God has not always been God, or that there has only been one God…Christian’s believe in one true God. (and of course they think that God was a man who became a God, and they think they can do the same. Do you feel comfortable with someone who thinks someday they will be your God?)

1) Psalm 90:2: “From everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.”

3) Malachi 3:6: “For I am the LORD, I change not. . . . “

right2bright on April 11, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Ah, the Hamlins. One of my favorite places in Utah is Hamlin Valley just North of Modena, West of Beryl.

I love that part of the country.

crosspatch on April 11, 2012 at 5:05 PM

I am glad that you are attempting to see things from our point of view. It shows that you really are sincere in attempting to understand what we really believe.

I applaud you sir.

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Well, it’s nice to be appreciated lol. Thanks again for the answers. Very helpful.

Nom de Boom on April 11, 2012 at 5:10 PM

They all have differences. I’m hoping this is the view of a minority fringe. Let’s unify and beat Obama, people!

WyoMike on April 11, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Very few are saying they won’t vote for Mitt because they are Mormon…maybe because he hasn’t proved to be anything close to a conservative, but just a couple have said because he was a Mormon.
That’s just a smokescreen to obscure the fact that he is not the leader many think of him.
We will unify behind a leader that reaches out to conservatives, and that is what is missing.
He will be questioned, and he should, on his religious beliefs, they are an integral part of his life, studying hours every day serving as a missionary, and than various leadership roles in the church.
JFK didn’t have anything close to that faithful walk, and he was skewered for being the first Catholic…the fact that Obama got off clean from explaining his suspect faithful walk, is no excuse for others to get the same path.
Ones faith helps them shape their opinion…Nixon was heavily questioned about his Quaker faith, a faith that is non violent, non-military, and people had every right to question that if he was going to be CINC…and they did. I don’t recall him whining about it.

right2bright on April 11, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Longing4Lincoln on April 11, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Yes, definitely more nuanced and contextualized. I was agnostic for quite a while, so I came at Christianity from a much more philosophical perspective than some. In addition to seeing what the text directly says, I’m also looking to test the coherence of those statements with the larger philosophy of Christianity. I’m a great admirer of the mind-cathedrals the medieval theologians were able to build.

Nom de Boom on April 11, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Yeah, you and the other guy are household words to acadamia…good grief, like I said, you have to dig deep.

Says the illiterate ignoramus.

I spent a masters work on just two words of the bible…Ego eimi (“ego eimi ho ohn” in the Septuagint)…CARM has a pretty good explanation…lay term, it’s the present tense, not past tense. As big of problem for the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who also change the meaning of the words to fit their beliefs.

I thought you wanted “scholars”? CARM doesn’t have any “scholars”.

I linked to two non-Mormon scholars and you come back with CARM?

LOL!!!

1) Psalm 90:2: “From everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.”

3) Malachi 3:6: “For I am the LORD, I change not. . . . “

“Everlasting”? LOL!!!

As in “the everlasting hills”?

Gen. 49:26 The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren.

Are you sure “everlasting” means what you think it means?

So, according to YOUR logic Nineveh is claiming there is only ONE city in existence.

Zephaniah 2:13 And he will stretch out his hand against the north, and destroy Assyria; and will make Nineveh a desolation, and dry like a wilderness.
. . .
15 This is the rejoicing city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is none beside me: how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in! every one that passeth by her shall hiss, and wag his hand.

Which makes NO SENSE AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Ah, the Hamlins. One of my favorite places in Utah is Hamlin Valley just North of Modena, West of Beryl.

I love that part of the country.

crosspatch on April 11, 2012 at 5:05 PM

A very beautiful high mountain valley to be sure.

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 5:35 PM

I believe that Mary is the immaculate conception, conceived without sin and that she was assumed…The Assumption of Mary…and I believe in the Real Presence, not some other thing, and that the savior rose from the dead, so I bet a lot of people would make fun of me and not want me to run for any office or give me a lot of hard time over the magesterial choices of the eons, but it’s a mystery and you take it on faith, or because you have really seen the light. Happy Easter. I don’t want to hear a WORD from the party of anti religion about any theological questions, PLEASE!

Fleuries on April 11, 2012 at 5:58 PM

I thought you wanted “scholars”? CARM doesn’t have any “scholars”.

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Good grief…just after stating “CARM”, I say “it has a pretty good explanation”, for the lay man. If you want scholarly, I can give you that, but I assumed you did not study Hebrew or any other of the ancient languages…but the CARM explanation was pretty accurate…what did you find missing?
Oh, I see, nothing because you totally excused yourself from the actual challenge and you threw out a “shiny object”.

“Everlasting”? LOL!!!

As in “the everlasting hills”?

No as in olam…always, forever, eternity, it’s Hebrew, definitive, not transitory….and that my friends is the problem that Joseph Smith had also…when you don’t know the real meanings of words, you make something up and then say “but it’s how you want to interpret it”…no, you should find the actual definition, and that is what you use.

Not even a good try, but at least an effort…it won’t matter to you, because truth and facts are meaningless, you are taught to use whatever definition your faith tells you to use.

Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever Thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God.
- Jewish Publication Society Bible

Before the Earth would have been brought forth or ever the world would have been acquired, from eternity unto eternity you are God–
Aramic translated English bible

right2bright on April 11, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Oops forgot the “everlasting” hills part…the usage, same word, Olam, but preceded by different tenses comes out being defined as, long duration, antiquity, futurity…not forever.

In Hebrew the same word can have several meanings…there actually were not that many words, compared to our language today. So even the early bible scholars had problems, and it was (as noted) not until the advent of the computer and more sophisticated linguist programs did we began to be able to separate some of these words and phrases…amazingly, the bible is very accurate, what isn’t is lay people, like Joseph Smith, who assumed one word (from King James) and it was actually “nuanced” into another. Not a big deal, since it ended up even strengthening the Christian definitions, but a big deal to other religions like LDS and Jehovah Witnesses.

Once again the complexity of the language is what tripped up Joseph Smith, and you are falling for the same.

He did the same with the word “compass”, assuming it meant a compass for direction, and not a drawing instrument…

right2bright on April 11, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Gunlock Bill, have a blessed evening…rejoice in or Lord and Savior.

right2bright on April 11, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Agreed. This is just more fodder for those who already hate him. For god’s sake, 1978 was the height of disco. Can’t some things be forgiven?

John the Libertarian on April 10, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Only 2 years earlier, Republican Governor Kit Bond of Missouri formally rescinded Executive Order 44 signed by Democrat Governor Lilburn Boggs in 1838. It was known as the Mormon Extermination Order. As Boggs said:

“the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace—their outrages are beyond all description.”

It took a Republican governor and 138 years to repeal the only legal extermination order ever issued for Americans…one that was signed into law by a Democrat.

Resist We Much on April 10, 2012 at 8:46 PM

That executive order didn’t come out of the blue like a thunderbolt. There was a lot of Mormon misbehavior at the time that is generally swept under the rug, because it’s so easy to just assume our forebears were completely intolerant and just engaging in religious persecution.

You might not want to dig all that back up right now.

Back on topic, though, I can’t see how it’s relevant to now, or to Obama.

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 12, 2012 at 12:25 AM

Mormons are mostly good people who belong to a benign cult. I’m not looking for a national pastor, but Romneys pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control, big-government past cannot be ignored. Those who ignore it do so at our peril.

swinia sutki on April 11, 2012 at 6:21 AM

swinia…
your facts are way off:
Romney was/is NOT pro-abortion. This has been thoroughly gone over. He has personally always been against abortion as it is in the LDS Church except for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Even Harry Reid has this same stance.

So we’re supposed to take Mitt’s word for it that he will repeal Obamacare, but we’re NOT supposed to take Mitt’s word for it when he assured everyone within earshot that he was totally pro-choice? And yes, pro-choice means pro-abortion, even though some politicians think they can be clever and avoid it by saying “I am personally opposed to abortion, but respect a woman’s right to choose to kill their babies anyway. After all, it’s not like there’s really a life at stake.”

Romney is NOT pro-gay marriage.
He went before the Senate Committee twice and argued before them in 2004/5 about allowing gay marriage in MA. He has supported DOMA from the beginning. In fact, Romney was on the forefront to try stop gay marriage from going forward when it started. He IS for anti-discrimination laws against gays.

Romney caved on gay marriage in Massachusetts before it was demanded. So yes, he was effectively pro-gay marriage, no matter what words he mouthed about being personally opposed.

Romney is FOR the 2nd Amendment and even signed legislation PRAISED by the NRA in MA by opening up gun rights previously restricted for decades in MA. The automatic weapons ban is false.
Regarding the legislation the myth refers to, the NRA declared:
“Here are just some of the points that the media (including The Boston Globe) got wrong…
“Myth: The gun ban was extended…
“Myth: The legislature somehow “won over” gun-rights supporters by including reforms.
“Fact: NRA and Gun Owners` Action League (GOAL) had made it very clear to the legislature that we would not give up any ground. NRA and GOAL supported this bill because it did not ban any guns, and because it made much-needed reforms.”
NRA-ILA :: Massachusetts – Firearms Reform Bill Sent to the Governor`s Desk – Jun 29, 2004
Massachusetts oldest, largest and premier pro-second amendment/gun rights group, Gun owners` Action League (GOAL) stated:
“The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the “assault weapon” ban that had sunset at the federal level. They could not have been more wrong. Unfortunately for the Governor, someone had also wrongly briefed him about the bill. As a result the Lt. Governor and the Governor made statements at the bill signing ceremony that angered GOAL members.”

All that cited to hope no one notices Mitt’s role in banning “assault rifles.

Many people need to FACT check their beliefs about Romney in MA. A Governor that issues over 800 VETOES does not mean he AGREES with his DEMOCRAT-led Legislature. :o)

g2825m on April 11, 2012 at 7:45 AM

And the biggest whopper of all: that it’s not Mitt’s fault that the state where he decided to go into politics was liberal. After all, how could someone as brilliant as Mitt have guessed that a liberal state would be so, you know, liberal?

You should not have responded by claiming the facts were wrong.
The FACTS are that your claims are false. Mitt now claims to be pro-life, but then said he was pro-abortion. He now claims to be an advocate of the 2nd Amendment, but then was interested in banning assault rifles. He issued a pro-gay marriage executive order when he didn’t have to, but now says he’s opposed to it. He issued an executive order requiring Catholic hospitals to administer contraceptives.

The problem with Rommney isn’t his Mormonism. It’s that he’s a shifty politician who will shade every word to make you think he’s taking one position, then turn around and take the opposite when it’s politically convenient.

The more you know of Mitt’s record in Massachusetts. the more laughable the claim that he was a conservative. Just call him what he called himself: a progressive Republican. You don’t get more liberal than that and still be in the Republican party.

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 12, 2012 at 12:49 AM

This is a Christian country, Bambi. Bush was a member of a mainline Christian denomination. His faith was not some unknown.

The same is not true regarding Mormonism.

Are you aware that the early Christians were considered a cult including Paul and Peter who were both martyred? In fact, all of the original twelve apostles were martyred because of their non-”mainline” religious beliefs.

rcw on April 11, 2012 at 1:22 AM

The early Christians were derided as atheists because they did not believe in the Roman gods. So does that mean that atheists are part of the Christian faith now?

I doubt you could have picked a worse example to try to refute the claim that Mormons are a cult.

But you know what the early Christians never claimed? They never claimed to consider all pagans as abominations, then turned around a hundred years later and tried to identify themselves as another branch of pagan religion.

Which is exactly what the Mormons did. Joseph Smith said that God told him directly and personally (in the famed First Vision) that all Christian denominations were abominations to God, but now you can expect to be called a bigot if you don’t accept that Mormonism is just another Christian sect.

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 12, 2012 at 12:58 AM

The true and only test of Christianity is to be a follower of Christ and to live and do His teachings. Period. He said so.

Hueydriver on April 11, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Really?

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than what we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you, than what ye have received, let him be accursed.” Gal 1:8-9

Sounds like God considers what you believe to be somewhat important.

Now that doesn’t mean there’s no room for disagreement on some minor issues. But the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith are not negotiable.

“Brethren, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints.” Jude 1:3

Hmmm. The faith as something you “earnestly contend for.” Since the Christian faith does not believe in any form of jihad, it should be clear that this means to contend with words, and to not allow the core of the Christian faith to be thrown away or redefined or ignored.

“Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.” 1 Cor 15:10-19

Looks like the resurrection is pretty important, too.

All Christians don’t have to agree on everything, but there are some core doctrines of Christianity that are so central to the Christian faith that they must be accepted, or you don’t have a Christian church.

It is this issue that leads to Mormonism being considered a cult.

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 12, 2012 at 1:19 AM

The golden plates, “seerer stones”, zero archaeological evidence… Romney should stay away from this.

tetriskid on April 11, 2012 at 12:55 PM

This is excellent advice … that will probably be ignored by most Mormons, at least initially, as they try to defend their beliefs.

If Romney’s Mormonism is really irrelevant to his candidacy, there is nothing to be gained from getting off into the weeds to argue about it. Much better to call it irrelevant and move on.

And the reason this will be ignored by most Mormons, at least at first, is because they seem to be strongly conscious of how Mormonism is perceived by the general public, and won’t be able to resist defending it.

But in a political debate, there is nothing to be gained from the discussion.

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 12, 2012 at 1:40 AM

How about we start giving Mitt Romney some credit for overcoming all of these obstacles? How about some points for Mitt Romney’s racial taunts about Mormons and calls for his long form birth certificate.

He proves himself over and over again. But the naysayers will always say nay. He’s the candidate to back unless you want that dark cloud to keep hanging overhead.

A vote for Mitt is a vote against liberal-oppression.

Capitalist Hog on April 12, 2012 at 3:58 AM

Mormons are Christian.

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 2:50 PM

I’m sorry, but do you really think that the definition of Christianity comes from a dictionary? lol

The definition of Christianity comes from the Church and 2,000 years of Sacred Christian Tradition.

Elisa on April 12, 2012 at 7:21 AM

John 1:1-3

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, AND THE WORD WAS GOD.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.
. . .”

Elisa on April 11, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Which begs some questions.

“In the beginning” of what?

Eternity has no beginning.

Also, if you want to look at the Greek, (oh, wait, can us ignirt mormunz even do that?) you get a different impression all together. . . .

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 2:40 PM

And the Word WAS GOD.”

It does not say “and the Word was A GOD” or “ANOTHER GOD” or “ALSO A GOD” or even “God TOO.”

The plain meaning of this passage is clear in English, the original Greek or in any language.

This is the clear and only interpretation of this passage by the Church and the universal interpretation in all of Christendom for 2,000 years. Clear in Sacred Tradition.

Any other interpretation of it is the private interpretation of Joseph Smith.

And private interpretation of Scripture is forbidden by Scripture.

2 Peter 1:20-21:
“Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.”

Scripture is clear that there is only one God. Anything else is falsehood.

I will continue in my next post.

Elisa on April 12, 2012 at 7:24 AM

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 2:40 PM

I forgot another point about “in the beginning” and the MOrmon belief of God the Father having been created by other first gods and God the Father in turn creating Jesus Christ.

Besides, all these first gods, who then created a man who then became God the Father, who then created a spiritual God the Son with a Heavenly wife, then they created the earth and then Jesus became physical man.

God is outside of time and space. God created time for man, when He created the earth and universe. So then, in the fullness of time, God the son was made flesh. The Incarnation has an actual time. But all that stuff Mormons think came before the creation of the world could not have happened in a timely progression. There was no time.

To God the past, present and future are all the same, all at once.

And no where in Scripture or any Christian Sacred Tradition has there ever been mention of a Heavenly mother for Jesus Christ or other gods. Jesus only had an earthly mother, Mary. There was no need of a Heavenly mother, because God the Father did not create Him.

Elisa on April 12, 2012 at 7:31 AM

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 2:40 PM

There is certainly a difference in believing that Jesus Christ is A God and believing that Jesus is THE God.

Whenever Scripture and the Early Church Fathers call Jesus God, they simply say “God.” Meaning the one true God.

Otherwise, please, show me anywhere in Scripture or the Early Church Fathers where it says, “God, the Father and Jesus Christ, another God” or “also a God” or “the Holy Spirit another God” or “also a God” or where it says “there were other gods before God.” Or where it says that “hopefully, one day many of us will be gods.”

No where. Where does it say God is not one? Where does it speak of multiple gods? The only time Scripture uses the word “gods” it is talking about pagan false gods. Not real gods.

When Scripture, the early Church Fathers, Jews then and today and all Christians say “God” they mean the one true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God of Moses and David. The God made flesh in Jesus Christ.

Otherwise, please show me where it says anything about multiple gods.

Christians and Jews believe there are no other Gods, that there is only one true God.

Unlike Mormons, Christians believe that we can never become gods. We can become part of God, by sharing in His love and truth. We are to strive to be like God, like Jesus, our brother (as St. Paul says). To emulate Him. God Himself became man to show man how to conform our will to His will and be holy men. He did this by (in His human nature) obeying and praying to God the Father. The Persons of the Trinity interact with one another and manifest themselves to mankind in different ways, but are one in being. In His Divine nature, Christ’s will is the same will of God.

I’ve heard it said, the Persons of the Trinity are “who” they are (like God the Son), while being God is “what” they are.

But we can never be separate gods from the one true God (Father, Son and HolySpirit). (and we will not be given our own universes either.) There is only one God. And there is nothing in Scripture to the contrary.

Isaiah 43:10-14:
“You are my witnesses, says the LORD, my servants whom I have chosen To know and believe in me and understand that it is I. Before me no god was formed, and after me there shall be none. It is I, I the LORD; there is no savior but me. . . . yes, from eternity I am He.”

LORD here is all capitalized. As you know, in the Old Testament in English that means adonai/I AM/Yahweh/Jehovah. It is the name of God. When Moses asked God for His name, He said, “I am who am.” So here we have God the Father, the God of Abraham, saying he is Yahweh and he is the only savior and there is no god before Him and no god after Him. And that He was from all eternity. He had no beginning. So He was not a created man who then became a God, like Mormonism says.

All that is totally contrary to Mormonism. Mormons believe God the Father is not Yahweh, that Yahweh is Jesus. They believe that Jesus is the Savior, but that Jesus is not one God with God the Father. Yet here God the Father says He is the only Savior. Christians believe God the Father is our Savior because Jesus Christ, Our Savior, is one God with Him in the Trinity.

Isaiah says there were no other gods before Yahweh. So even if this was not God the Father talking, if it was Jesus talking, it would say there were no gods before Jesus, so there could be no God the Father.

Here God the Father says there are no gods before Him. Yet Mormons believe there were other Gods before God the Father and, in fact, God the Father was a man who became God. In fact, God the Father still has his physical body, according to Mormonism. (Like Jesus and like all of us have the capability of doing. We can all become gods and some have already become gods. Called eternal progression in Mormonism.) Yet Isaiah says there will be no other gods after God the Father. So how then is Jesus a God? How can all of us become our own gods? There are no other Gods. The Bible says so.

(Note to readers: Christians believe that only God the Son, Jesus Christ, had a physical body and that Jesus still has His resurrected glorified body in Heaven and that is how He will come at the Second Coming. Christians do believe that Jesus is still fully God and fully man.)

Isaiah 44:6:
“Thus says the LORD, Israel’s King and redeemer, the LORD of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; there is no God but me.

Isaiah 45:22:
“Turn to me and be safe, all you ends of the earth, for I am God; there is no other!

Deuteronomy 6:4:
“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one LORD.”

Mark12:29:
“Jesus replied, “The first is this: ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone!”

So there is one Lord. The Old Testament says there is one Lord. Jesus quotes it saying there is one Lord. Yet, the New Testament says Jesus is Lord. So there are 2 Lords? The Bible says there is only one Lord.

Jesus says in Revelation 1:17:
“When I caught sight of him, I fell down at his feet as though dead. He touched me with his right hand and said, “Do not be afraid. I am the first and the last, the one who lives. Once I was dead, but now I am alive forever and ever. I hold the keys to death and the netherworld.”

As I quoted before:
John 1:1-18

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, AND THE WORD WAS GOD.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.
What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race;
the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. . . .
And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth. . . . .
No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father’s side, has revealed him.”

It should be noted that where it says, “the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son” the actual Greek words for “made his dwelling” are “pitched his tent/tabernacle. The “glory” is really the Shekinah glory of God from the Old Testament tabernacle. When God made His dwelling amongst the Israelites. (Until the 1st Temple was destroyed and the Ark of the Covenant went missing.) So this is saying more than God becoming Flesh and certainly more than God the Son becoming Flesh. This is specifically saying that the God of the Israelites made His dwelling amongst us in the man Jesus Christ.

Genesis 1:26: “Let US make man in OUR image and likeness.”

Us and Our (plural) image and likeness (singular) This is the same in the Hebrew. The Trinity was there from the beginning. God used the plural and singular when speaking of Himself.

Please explain this line to me any other way. How can 3 different Gods have one image? Unless they are one God.

I’ve also quoted Jesus, who many times in Scripture uses the “I AM” in reference to Himself. Calling Himself not only a God, but the God who spoke to Moses. LORD, adonai.

John 8:58:
“Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.”

John 18:5-6:
“They answered him, “Jesus the Nazorean.” He said to them, “I AM.” Judas his betrayer was also with them. When he said to them, “I AM,” they turned away and fell to the ground.”

In John 5:18:
“For this reason the Jews tried all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but he also called God his own father, MAKING HIMSELF EQUAL TO GOD.”

They weren’t upset that Jesus was making Himself A God. They were upset He was making Himself equal to THE God. Mormons believe that God the Son is inferior to God the Father. Yet Jesus made Himself “equal to God.”

When “Thomas answered and said to him, “MY LORD AND MY GOD!” In John 20, do you really believe that St. Thomas (as a Jew) was thinking multiple gods? Jesus being a second god or one of maybe millions of gods? “My God” Who was Thomas’ God? The God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David. God the Father. The one true God.

And when in Luke 1, Elizabeth (inspired by the Holy Spirit) called Mary, “the mother of my Lord” who was Elizabeth’s Lord? (A Jewish woman would never use the name of God. She would say, “Lord.”) Elizabeth was talking about the same God Thomas was talking about. The Old Testament God. God the Son was not yet made manifest to Elizabeth in that way. He was just conceived and Elizabeth did not know Him as God the Son. She only knew of the one God of Israel. Yet, inspired by the Holy Spirit, Elizabeth says that the baby in Mary’s womb was her Lord, the God of Israel.

And while we are on Luke Chapter 1. It says that the Holy Spirit “overshadowed” Mary and Mary conceived Jesus. And Matthew’s Gospel says, “she was found with child through the holy Spirit. . . . For it is through the holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her.”

It doesn’t say that God the Father had intercourse with Mary, like Mormons belive. Even if there were 3 gods, then Mormons have the wrong one in Jesus’ conception. Scripture clearly says the Holy Spirit, not God the Father. Of course, since Christians believe all 3 Persons are one, then we have no problem with the Holy Spirit “overshadowing” Mary, yet God the Father is the Father of God the Son.

Also Scripture and the early Church Fathers tell us that Mary remained a virgin, even after conceiving Jesus. Matthew: “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” God did not have actual intercourse with Mary. Only pagan religions believed their pagan gods had intercourse with humans.

In fact, Catholics and maybe most Christians believe that “the woman” of Genesis 3 and of Revelation 12 is Mary, not just Eve. “I will put enmity between your seed and her seed.” No where else in all of Scripture does it talk about a woman having “seed.” Only men have seed. But in Jesus’ case, it would fit. Because He took all His DNA, all his humanity from Mary.

And nowhere in Scripture does it talk about God the Father first creating the spiritual Jesus in Heaven with God’s Heavenly wife (I guess some sort of goddess) and then creating Jesus’ body with Mary. Jesus did not have 2 Fathers. On that we agree, I think. Well, Jesus did not have 2 mothers either. One Heavenly and one earthly. Please show me anywhere in Scripture or in the Early Church Fathers that says this.

I will continue with the Early Church Fathers and what the New Testament Christians believed.

Elisa on April 12, 2012 at 7:47 AM

Gunlock Bill on April 11, 2012 at 2:53 PM

As for the New Testament Christians.

Believe whatever you want, but please don’t attribute your beliefs to the early Church Fathers. The early Church believed in the Trinity before it was given the name Trinity by at least the end of the 2nd century and way before the Nicene Creed.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm

St. Ignatius of Antioch (Bishop in good standing hand picked by St. Peter)
around 110AD

Letter to the Ephesians (Greeting and Ch7 and Ch19):

“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia, deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fullness of God the Father, and predestinated before the beginning of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God: Abundant happiness through Jesus Christ, and His undefiled grace. . . .

There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible— even Jesus Christ our Lord. . . .

For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost . . .

God Himself being manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life.”

This is saying that Jesus was “both made and NOT MADE.” Meaning that Jesus was not created by God the Father. And it says, “God HIMSELF being manifested in human form.” God Himself is God the Supreme Being, no? And it says that He Himself became flesh in Jesus Christ.

Letter to the Romans (Greeting):

“through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God

Letter to Polycarp (end):
“I pray for your happiness for ever in our God, Jesus Christ.

Letter to the Smynnaeans (Ch2):

“Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved. And He suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be [Christians]. And as they believe, so shall it happen unto them, when they shall be divested of their bodies, and be mere evil spirits.”

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0102.htm

Prayer of St. Polycarp:
“Wherefore also I praise You for all things, I bless You, I glorify You, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Your beloved Son, with whom, to You, and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all coming ages.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes Tertullian (late 2nd century) saying, “The Supreme Being must be unique, without equal. . . If God is not one, he is not God.”

St. Clement of Rome around 80AD (3rd Bishop of Rome): “”What think you, beloved? Did not Moses know beforehand that this would happen? Undoubtedly he knew; but he acted thus, that there might be no sedition in Israel, and that the name of the true and only God might be glorified; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen”

Here is St. Ignatius of Antioch again in his letter to the Philadelphians 110AD:

There is then one God and Father, and not two or three; one who is, and there is no other besides him, the only true [God]. For ‘the Lord your God,’ says [the Scripture], ‘is one Lord’ [Deut. 6:4]. . . . And there is also one Son, God the Word. . . . And there is also one Paraclete”

These early fathers of the Church are saying that there is only one God. A lesser god would still be a god. They are saying only one God. So when it says there is only one Son and that the Son is God the Word, then He would have to be the same one God. Ignatius says one God and Father. Again one God, yet he adds “and Father.” He is not saying that the Father is not God. He is saying that the Father is a manifested Person of the one God.

I could be here all day with quotes from St. Ignatius and from all the early Church Fathers. From the time of the Apostles (as seen in the New Testament) and from the time of those first taught by the Apostles (the early Church Fathers) to this very day, the Christian Church has believed in the Trinity and in the Divine nature of Our one Lord Jesus Christ.

If you do not want to believe in the Trinity, that is up to you. But don’t say the Christian Church from the beginning and universally all of Christendom for 2,000 years taught something it did not.

Elisa on April 12, 2012 at 8:00 AM

I don’t know if this has been posted, but for those of you who are confused, or want to argue, or want to know the truth, the following are the 13 Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were written by Joseph Smith when he was asked what our chuch believes in, and what differences there are between the LDS church and other churches.

1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

7. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.

8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

DuctTapeMyBrain on April 12, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Once again the complexity of the language is what tripped up the ANTI-MORMONS, and you are falling for the same.

THEY did the same with the word “compass”, assuming it meant a drawing instrument… rather than something circular.

right2bright on April 11, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Fixed it for you.

From the 1828 dictionary.

COMPASS, n.

1. Stretch; reach; extent; the limit or boundary of a space, and the space included; applied to time, space, sound, &c. Our knowledge lies within a very narrow compass. The universe extends beyond the compass of our thoughts. So we say, the compass of a year, the compass of an empire, the compass of reason, the compass of the voice.

And in that compass all the world contains.

2. A passing round; a circular course; a circuit.

Time is come round;

and where I did begin, thee shall I end:

My life has run its compass.

They fetched a compass of seven days journey. 2 Kings 3. 2 Sam. 5. Acts 28.

3. Moderate bounds; limits of truth; moderation; due limits.

In two hundred years, (I speak within compass,) no such commission had been executed.

This sense is the same as the first, and the peculiar force of the phrase lies in the word within.

4. The extent or limit of the voice or of sound.

5. An instrument for directing or ascertaining the course of ships at sea, consisting of a circular box, containing a paper card marked with the thirty two points of direction, fixed on a magnetic needle, that always points to the north, the variation excepted. The needle with the card turns on a pin in the center of the box. In the center of the needle is fixed a brass conical socket or cap, by which the card hanging on the pin turns freely round the center. The box is covered with glass, to prevent the motion of the card from being disturbed by the wind.

6. Compass or compasses, [or a pair of compasses, so named from its legs, but pair is superfluous or improper, and the singular number compass is the preferable name,] an instrument for describing circles, measuring figures, &c., consisting of two pointed legs or branches, made of iron, steel or brass, joined at the top by a rivet, on which they move. There are also compasses of three legs or triangular compasses, cylindrical and spherical compasses with four branches, and various other kinds.

7. An instrument used in surveying land, constructed in the main like the mariners compass; but with this difference, that the needle is not fitted into the card, moving with it, but plays alone; the card being drawn on the bottom of the box, and a circle divided into 360 degrees on the limb. This instrument is used in surveying land, and in directing travelers in a desert or forest, miners, &c.

Compass-saw, a saw with a brad edge and thin back, to cut in a circular form.

COMPASS, v.t.

1. To stretch round; to extend so as to embrace the whole; hence, to inclose, encircle, grasp or seize; as, to compass with the arms.

2. To surround; to environ; to inclose on all sides; sometimes followed by around, round or about.

Now all the blessings of a glad father compass thee about.

With favor wilt thou compass him as with a shield. Ps. 5.

The willows of the brook compass him about. Job 40.

3. To go or walk round.

Ye shall compass the city–and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times. Josh. 6.

For ye compass sea and land. Math. 23.

4. To besiege; to beleaguer; to block up. This is not a different sense, but a particular application.

Thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side. Luke 19.

5. To obtain; to attain to; to procure; to bring within ones power; to accomplish.

If I can check my erring love, I will;

If not, to compass her Ill use my skill.

How can you hope to compass your designs?

6. To purpose; to intend; to imagine; to plot; to contrive; as we say, to go about to perform, but in mind only; as, to compass the death of the king.

Gunlock Bill on April 12, 2012 at 9:55 AM

I’m sorry, but do you really think that the definition of Christianity comes from a dictionary? lol

So, the dictionary definition isn’t accurate?

So, you have to have a “special” exclusionary definition?

The definition of Christianity comes from the Church and 2,000 years of Sacred Christian Tradition.

Elisa on April 12, 2012 at 7:21 AM

Nope, the definition comes from common usage as found in an English dictionary.

DUH!!!

Gunlock Bill on April 12, 2012 at 9:58 AM

“And the Word WAS GOD.”

It does not say “and the Word was A GOD” or “ANOTHER GOD” or “ALSO A GOD” or even “God TOO.”

The plain meaning of this passage is clear in English, the original Greek or in any language.

Yup! And I provide several accurate translations that can’t be manipulated by you to mean something different than what was meant.

Any other interpretation of it is the private interpretation of Joseph Smith.

Nope. It was the ACCURATE translation as demonstrated by the several translations I provided.

And private interpretation of Scripture is forbidden by Scripture.

2 Peter 1:20-21:
“Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.”

I agree that YOUR private interpretation is inaccurate.

Scripture is clear that there is only one God. Anything else is falsehood.

Elisa on April 12, 2012 at 7:24 AM

Many Bible scholars disagree. I provided some of them for you. I also provide several scriptures that also disagree with you.

Gunlock Bill on April 12, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Elisa on April 12, 2012 at 7:47 AM

I already addressed these issues. You have provided NOTHING new.

Gunlock Bill on April 12, 2012 at 10:05 AM

It doesn’t say that God the Father had intercourse with Mary, like Mormons belive.

Elisa on April 12, 2012 at 7:47 AM

More falsehoods from the anti-Mormons. I know a lot of Mormons who don’t believe that. It is not Mormon doctrine.

You really should get your facts straight before you go telling other people what they believe. It is VERY rude.

Gunlock Bill on April 12, 2012 at 10:09 AM

BTW, everyone who is saying that the Book of Mormon is going against the Bible because the Bible says that “no word can be added or subtracted” from it . . .

What does the Bible say about changing the words? How many various “Easy Read” Bibles are out there today? I know, I know, they are written so that the everyday Joe’s can understand them. But who is the person who is interpreting the meanings of the “Hard Read” Bible. What are their biases, opinions, religon? Just saying.

DuctTapeMyBrain on April 12, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Even though I have already address this issue, I will again with this.

Passages such as Isa 44:6,8 and 45:5,21 that read “no God beside me” or a variation of that phrase are traditionally interpreted by mainstream anti-Mormons as meaning that other than Yahweh no form of deity exists at all, including exalted men. This type of interpretation at first seems obvious, but after considering similar passages in other parts of scripture it is clear that this interpretation is incorrect.

For example, Isaiah 47:8-10 depicts the city of Babylon as saying:

Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children:

For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me.

These passages use the exact same phrase as Isa 44 and 45, yet they certainly do not exclude the existence of any city other than Babylon. The city of Ninevah would be very upset if this were the case, as Zephaniah depicts Ninevah in Zephaniah 2:15 as saying:

This is the rejoicing city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is none beside me: how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in! every one that passeth by her shall hiss, and wag his hand.

Again it is clear that this phrase does not exclude the very existence of other cities. Using these parallel phrases makes it clear that Isaiah is not excluding the very existence of any other deity when he quotes Yahweh as declaring “there is no God beside me.” There are, in fact, several scriptures in the Old Testament that imply that Yahweh is in fact one of a number of Gods, albeit supreme. Compare the following passages from the KJV, NIV and ESV versions of the Bible:

And the heavens shall praise thy wonders, O Lord: thy faithfulness also in the congregation of the saints. For who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord? God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him. O Lord God of hosts, who is a strong Lord like unto thee? aor to thy faithfulness round about thee? (KJV Psalms 89:5-8)

The heavens praise your wonders, O LORD, your faithfulness too, in the assembly of the holy ones. For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD? Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings [fn. Lit "sons of god(s)]? In the council of holy ones God is greatly feared; he is more awesome than all who surround him. O LORD God almighty, who is like you? You are mighty, O LORD, and your faithfulness surrounds you (NIV Psalms 89:5-8).

Among all the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works (Psalms 86:8).

God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment (ESV Psalms 82:1)

God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. (KJV Psalms 82:1)

These scriptures speak of divine beings, “gods” who are the “sons of god(s)” who are heavenly beings who dwell in the skies. These cannot be idols or false gods. Yahweh dwells among them, reigns over them, and holds judgment in their midst.

Another favorite scripture of the critics of the LDS doctrine of exaltation is Isaiah 43:10. They seem to believe it contradicts this doctrine when it says:

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Whether this passage is referring to false idols who represent deities that do not exist, or whether it refers to real divine beings who exist alongside and subordinate to Yahweh is not crucial for responding to this particular criticism. The passage specifically says “before” and “after” Yahweh. Since Yahweh has always existed, and since He will always exist no man can ever be exalted “before” or “after” Yahweh. All men who are exalted to godhood will be contemporaries of Yahweh, and will never precede nor follow Yahweh’s existence. They will also become part of the divine council over which he presides.

And again from the 1828 dictionary.

beside

BESI’DE, prep. [be and side, by the side.]

1. At the side of a person or thing; near; as, sit down beside me, or beside the stream.

2. Over and above; distinct from.

Beside all this, between us and you, there is a great gulf fixed. Luke 16.

3. On one side; out of the regular course or order; not according to, but not contrary.

It is beside my present business to enlarge upon this speculation.

4. Out of; in a state deviating from; as, to put one beside his patience. Hence,

5. With the reciprocal pronoun, beside one’s self is out of the wits or senses; out of the order of reason, or of rational beings.

Paul, thou are beside thyself. Act 26.

Gunlock Bill on April 12, 2012 at 10:23 AM

It is important to remember that something like “the historic church’s concept of the Trinity” does not exist. The doctrine of the Trinity as taught by Catholics and mainstream Protestants is rejected by Eastern Orthodoxy, and vice versa. The Trinity doctrine of the second century A.D. differs from that of the third, and the fourth century developed even newer ideas. Aquinas’ doctrine is different from that of Augustine, and Barth again developed a new doctrine of the Trinity. Modern understanding of key terms like homoousios, person, nature, substance and essence don’t have much to do with what they meant in the fourth century A.D.

Gunlock Bill on April 12, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Gunlock Bill. People like you and The Hop are the reason I left the church. When I was a Mormon, I considered all other Christian faiths genuine. There was always the need it seemed to falsifly others beliefs to try to defend ours. I still believe in the salvation of Mormons, but seeing what the church has become with folks like is just sad.

smoothsailing on April 12, 2012 at 7:11 PM

It is important to remember that something like “the historic church’s concept of the Trinity” does not exist. The doctrine of the Trinity as taught by Catholics and mainstream Protestants is rejected by Eastern Orthodoxy, and vice versa. The Trinity doctrine of the second century A.D. differs from that of the third, and the fourth century developed even newer ideas. Aquinas’ doctrine is different from that of Augustine, and Barth again developed a new doctrine of the Trinity. Modern understanding of key terms like homoousios, person, nature, substance and essence don’t have much to do with what they meant in the fourth century A.D.

Gunlock Bill on April 12, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Gunlock Bill, do you really think that you have addressed my posts or those of others here to anyone’s satisfaction other than your own?

No, you did not address any other Scripture I posted correctly and you ignored most of it, which covered several individual points.

I understand that you cannot seriously address my post from yesterday (that you ignored) or my posts from today, because there is no response to facts.

Biblical translations by obscure modern Bible scholars from the last 2 centuries and modern websites that defend Mormon beliefs do not compare with 2,000 years of Christian theologians, Doctors of the Church and Bible scholars and translators who actually knew Kione Greek back in the day.

Not to mention the early Church Father quotes from 110AD that I posted that you completely ignored.

History is history. You don’t have to believe in the Trinity, but you cannot say the New Testament Christians and the early Church Fathers didn’t. They did. And (like others here have said) the Apostles and their hand picked successors valued orthodoxy in Christian teaching (“the teachings of the Apostles”) above all else. They did not want Christ’s Gospel distorted. They would not have stood for the Christian faith being distorted in its first decades.

Like Mohammed distorted it 500 years later when he wrote the Koran and interpreted the Bible his way and translated words his way and called his writings God’s word. Islam believes that Jesus is the Messiah, born of Virgin, sinless and, along with Mohammed, the two greatest prophets of God.

Like Joseph Smith distorted it 1800 years later when he wrote (and plagiarized) the Book of Mormon and interpreted the Bible his way and translated words his way and called his writings God’s word. Praise God that Mormons accept Jesus as their Savior, but they do not understand and know Jesus’ true Nature or His full truth.

What you wrote about the Eastern Orthodox Churches is false.

The Eastern Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics beliefs in the Trinity are identical to the Western/Roman/Latin Catholics. In fact the last 2 Popes have said the Creed without the filioque (“and from the Son”) when praying at Eastern Catholic Masses. The 21 Eastern Catholic Churches are fully united with the Bishop of Rome and, like the various Eastern Orthodox Churches who are in schism with us over authority, all believe in all the Sacred Christian Tradition that the Western Catholics believe. Every bit of it.

Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox always believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, just like Roman Catholics, they just didn’t see the need to add to the Creed to include that fact, because the East did not have a problem with that heresy, as some parts isolated parts of the West started developing it.

The East/West schism of 1045 of some of the Eastern Churches was because of politics and hot heads. The split was on matters of authority, not faith beliefs. The faith beliefs are identical, including the Trinity. Because we all interpret Sacred Scripture with Sacred Tradition, the oral “teachings of the Apostles” handed down.

I pray the future reunification of all the Eastern Orthodox Churches with the Catholic Church comes one day soon in my lifetime, as their Eastern Catholic brethren are fully united with the Western Catholics.

If you disagree with any of my posts, then please show me actual quotes from the early Church that CLEARLY uphold Mormon teachings. They do not exist. Like the quotes I have posted that uphold Christian teachings from the earliest days of the Church. And as heresies later developed, the doctrine of the Trinity began to be defined and explained in more detail by the Holy Spirit through the Church. But it never changed.

My interpretations of Scripture are not my own or “personal.” They are the interpretations of the Church for 2,000 years, as I have already proven. It is Joseph Smith who has his own personal interpretations, which is forbidden by Scripture.

Twisting interpretations and translations in modern times in a vacuum without substantiating it with the early Church is empty and unconvincing.

Again, you are entitled to your beliefs, but they are not Christian. But I do understand that Mormons love Jesus Christ and follow many of His teachings in an admirable way. I respect them for that.

May God bless you.

Elisa on April 12, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4