CNN contributors: If Rev. Wright is fair game, so is Mormonism’s racial history

posted at 5:39 pm on May 17, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite. On the one hand, this probably was a consideration in Team Mitt’s mad dash this morning to distance themselves from the now-kaput Rev. Wright Super PAC ad. On the other hand, does anyone think the media’s going to let Romney’s faith pass unremarked upon if he’s three or four points up on O circa early October? Newsweek was willing to churn out this cover last year; imagine what they’ll do once real panic sets in.

John Ziegler has an interesting theory about today’s trial balloon:

Secondly, a proper attack on the Wright issue could provide a strong defense, or at least a deterrent, on the “Mormon issue” regarding Romney’s religion.

The media has already made it clear that they intend to make Romney’s religion a campaign topic, either overtly or covertly, whenever possible. By making Wright a major campaign subject this puts the media/Obama campaign in a rather tough spot. If they condemn the Wright attacks, then it makes it extremely difficult for them to “go Mormon.” If they don’t, then at least the issue is neutralized as very few undecided voters are going to view Romney’s Mormonism as more of a negative than Obama’s Wright connection. My gut tells me this is a good trade for the Romney forces. At worst, it is a wash.

In other words, Rev. Wright and Mormonism act as nuclear weapons in Romney’s and Obama’s respective arsenals. In theory, a launch would bring about mutually assured destruction. Would it really, though? Obama might sustain some damage but the issue is old news for many voters; if anything, it’d be a handy change of subject for him on the economy, especially with the media in full gasping-indignation mode on behalf of their guy. By contrast, depending upon how nasty and demagogic O’s surrogates are, attacking Mitt’s Mormonism could be a way to define him negatively for swaths of voters who are unfamiliar with him. As BuzzFeed points out, most Americans know next to nothing about LDS, which makes it a blank slate that might be used effectively by a sufficiently vicious/desperate campaign operative. If you’re going to rattle the campaign saber about Rev. Wright, do it because you think that’s an important issue, not because it might deter O’s boosters from dragging religion into this. Because it won’t.


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

Not all Christians believe in a literal “flood”. Some Christians believe in Evolution – some don’t. The Christian religion is a diverse religion with many sects. The Mormon religion is damn near homogenous.

HondaV65 on May 17, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Im a Catholic who doesnt’t believe in the Garden of Eden, the Great Flood or the Towel of Babel as literal stories. But come on, quit being such a bully just because you hate Romney so much. Live and let live, dude.

thebrokenrattle on May 17, 2012 at 8:22 PM

- and they never will.

HondaV65 on May 17, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Anyone willing to make a statement like that, obviously has no understanding of Archeology.

The Dresden Codex was unreadable, until it wasn’t.
Pre-Classic Wheat and Barley would never be found, until it was.
An Oasis in the country of Yemen, as described in the Book of Mormon; would never be found until it was.

You may think you are smarter than a 5th grader, but you still are just one big epic fail.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on May 17, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Ten Lies I Told As A Mormon Missionary …

And in stark contrast to the Old and New Testaments, virtually no archaeological and anthropological evidence supports the Book of Mormon. Why not? Because it’s fiction. When Christians want to read scripture, they turn to the Bible.

HondaV65 on May 17, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Anyone willing to make a statement like that, obviously has no understanding of Archeology.

The Dresden Codex was unreadable, until it wasn’t.
Pre-Classic Wheat and Barley would never be found, until it was.
An Oasis in the country of Yemen, as described in the Book of Mormon; would never be found until it was.

You may think you are smarter than a 5th grader, but you still are just one big epic fail.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on May 17, 2012 at 8:23 PM

More Mormon logical flaws … let me restate your post …

“Honda – you’re wrong – the lack of archaeological evidence supporting the BoM PROVES that it’s correct!”

LOL

Look man – come back and talk to me when you find dem honey bees!

LMFAO!

HondaV65 on May 17, 2012 at 8:26 PM

PEOPLE CAN BECOME GODS …

Given its explosive nature, this tenet was rarely shared with prospective converts. Missionaries try to entice people into Mormonism gradually, and presenting the doctrine of plural gods is seldom the best way. Several contacts learned the concept from their pastors or read about it on their own, but it was new to most prospects.

“Our Father in heaven loves us so much,” I often said, parroting our lesson script, “that He provided a plan [Mormonism] for us to become like him.” I didn’t mention that Mormon godhood includes spirit procreation throughout eternity. Neither did I hint that the Mormon God was formerly a mortal man, had lived on an earth like ours, and had earned salvation through good works. However, such polytheism strips God of glory and sovereignty. No wonder the Bible condemns it so strongly. When discussing plural gods on my mission, I sidestepped Isaiah 44:8 whenever possible. “Is there a God beside me?” the passage reads. “Yea, there is no God; I know not any.” Other verses amply testify that only one God exists in the universe (Deuteronomy 4:35, 39; 6:4; Isaiah 43:10-11; 45:21-23).

When confronted with these scriptures as a missionary, I usually countered with, “Those verses mean we worship only one God, that there’s only one God to us.” And if that failed, I lied further: “The Bible isn’t clear on this subject. Fortunately, the Lord told Joseph Smith that mortals can become gods.” Smith might have had a revelation, but not from God.

HondaV65 on May 17, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Look man – come back and talk to me when you find dem honey bees!

LMFAO!

HondaV65 on May 17, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Right after you can prove to me there are talking snakes, dragons, and cherubs with flaming swords.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on May 17, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Right after you can prove to me there are talking snakes, dragons, and cherubs with flaming swords.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on May 17, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Back at ya – because I don’t believe in those things either.

See this is the way Willy McDole kiddies roll. When cornered – they simply lash out because they have no facts to base their arguments on.

Thanks for playing.

HondaV65 on May 17, 2012 at 8:38 PM

We’re sliding into the financial and cultural abyss and “The Maarhmans are coming !!!1!1!1!1!1″ is what were going to talk about?

gwelf on May 17, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Right after you can prove to me there are talking snakes, dragons, and cherubs with flaming swords.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on May 17, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Oh and – by the way – the Mormons believe in everything that’s in the Bible too – well, they believe in everything in it EXCEPT the “one God” philosophy – since any pious Mormon can become a GOD of his own universe if he pious enough, does good deeds, and never questions the church!

LOL

Yeah see – Mormons – they didn’t just like plural wives – they like plural Gods also. They should have ditched the latter and kept the former in my opinion – instead of the other way around! LOL

HondaV65 on May 17, 2012 at 8:41 PM

We’re sliding into the financial and cultural abyss and “The Maarhmans are coming !!!1!1!1!1!1″ is what were going to talk about?

gwelf on May 17, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Follow my posts up – I only brought this up after one other poster decided that Willy McDole should use his Mormonism to save the United States or something.

To which – my reaction was shear laughter – and an avalanche of posting after being personally attacked as “anti-Mormon”. Well, okay – I’m as “anti-Mormon” as I am “anti-Communist” and for good reasons!

HondaV65 on May 17, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Great Honda you think Mormon theology is full of crap. Who cares? You’d rather have 4 more years of Obama than Romney?

gwelf on May 17, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Great Honda you think Mormon theology is full of crap. Who cares? You’d rather have 4 more years of Obama than Romney?

gwelf on May 17, 2012 at 8:44 PM

You must be new.

OF COURSE I PREFER OBAMA TO ROMNEY!!

First – if given a choice between two Socialists – always vote for the better looking one. I will – that’s Obama.

Willy McDole will crash this country – so will Obama but at least when he does it the Conservatives won’t get the blame for it.

HondaV65 on May 17, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Honda, if you were as anti-communist as you are anti-Mormon, you could have won the Cold War singlehandedly.

thebrokenrattle on May 17, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Joseph Smith …

First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heavens, is a man like unto one of yourselves, that is the great secret…. I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that God was God from all eternity…. God himself; the Father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did…. You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves…. No man can learn you more than what I have told you (Times and Seasons, vol. 5, pp. 613-14).]

http://www.utlm.org/images/changingworld/chwp174timesandseasons.gif

Let any Mormon here disavow this belief that any human can become a God – as Joseph Smith said we all could.

Then let him resolve that with Christianity – which teaches there is ONLY ONE GOD – and has only ever been ONE GOD.

HondaV65 on May 17, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Honda, if you were as anti-communist as you are anti-Mormon, you could have won the Cold War singlehandedly.

thebrokenrattle on May 17, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Who says I didn’t? I was one of Ronald Reagan’s Submariners I’ll have you know! ;)

HondaV65 on May 17, 2012 at 8:55 PM

You care – or you would’ve ignored my post. :D

LOL – idiots who can’t see their own logical flaws!!

What would Hot Air be without them?

HondaV65 on May 17, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Nice try moron. I don’t care what you think. I read your posts once in a very great while for entertainment and to prove to myself that people like you do exist. You are somewhat entertaining for about two posts. After that you’re pretty much standard babble and nothing special. And no, I haven’t read any of your other posts here today. So don’t flatter yourself, you are still a boring pathetic poster who is also a bigot. Have a nice night.

Deanna on May 17, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Martin is a hilarious, fat, little, bald man with crazy eyes and the brain of a car wash attendant.

Jaibones on May 17, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Look, the bottom line is I don’t care to debate Mormon theological positions. As for racist pasts, I grew up in the Southern Baptist tradition. As did Bill Clinton and Brad Pitt and Mike Huckabee and Bill Moyers. Do we want to go into the racial past of the SBC? It was known for a time as the religious arm of the KKK. If ROmney sat in a church for 20 years in which the pastor routinely preached racial hatred, then we’ll have a correspondence here. Otherwise it’s a very cheap and shabby tu quoque which will backfire enormously on Team O. Let ‘em go for it.

I think Romney’s a weak candidate and I’ve made no bones about that, and I don’t think he will win. But if Obama has to win I’d love to see him have to go up in flames politically to do so.

ddrintn on May 17, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Even worse: in an interview with Tim Russert in 2007, Romney refused to condemn the pre-1978 doctrine.

iwasbornwithit on May 17, 2012 at 9:26 PM

In other words, Rev. Wright and Mormonism act as nuclear weapons in Romney’s and Obama’s respective arsenals. In theory, a launch would bring about mutually assured destruction.

Okay, except you *know* that the other guy *is* going to launch his. So you agree to a deceptive “I won’t launch” bargain *knowing* this?

WTF?

Romney’s a big ole wuss, and we f-ing knew it, f-ing predicted it, and low-and-behold, here it is.

Midas on May 17, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Even worse: in an interview with Tim Russert in 2007, Romney refused to condemn the pre-1978 doctrine.

iwasbornwithit on May 17, 2012 at 9:26 PM

And who’s ever really put Obama on the spot for his penchant for wacky black liberation theology? EvenO’Reilly let him off the hook in that 2008 interview. Romney’s Mormonism has been picked at by the MSM for at least 5 years now. It’s old news, and that line of attack isn’t going to work. People are fed up with that sort of smear. Romney didn’t institute the “pre-1978 doctrine” any more than Bill Clinton instituted the SBC’s racial attitudes. It’ds utterly irrelevant. I can criticise Romney for LOTS of things, and I do, all the time. But I don’t think the man is a racist, and if the Dems want to go toe to toe over Mormonism vs Jeremiah Wright and assorted flakes, let ‘em go for it.

ddrintn on May 17, 2012 at 9:37 PM

ddrintn on May 17, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Why would he refuse to condemn the pre-1978 doctrine? That is institutionalized racism at its most abhorrent. He was an adult member of the church in 1978. Do you believe that he was unaware of this? I am sorry but this is completely fair game, especially since he refused to condemn it as late as 2007. And you are fooling yourself if you think the Reverend Wright stuff will be an effective counterpunch. Most people in this country are unaware of this part of Mormons’ history, including a lot of younger Mormons.

iwasbornwithit on May 17, 2012 at 9:45 PM

This is a false comparison. Trying to compare contemporary comments of Reverend Wright to the history of an entire religion is intellectually dishonest journalism.

stuartm650 on May 17, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Hooray for religious tests!

Dante on May 17, 2012 at 11:14 PM

HondaV65;

Find the honey bees? That’s easy. “3 And they did also carry with them deseret, which, by interpretation, is a honey bee; and thus they did carry with them swarms of bees, and all manner of that which was upon the face of the land, seeds of every kind.” (Ether 2). That is an account of the Brother of Jared *preparing* to journey to the New World. Nowhere does the Book of mormon say that they brought honey bees to the New World. please know what you are talking about before talkng about it.

As for “becoming gods”, that doctrine is not hidden. It’s not taught off hand because a) it’s not the main purpose of The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints. That main purpose is to serve Jesus Christ. to worship the Father in His name. You’ve no idea what you mock, do you? It’s also not taught offhand because b) it can generate confusion to the listener. If I were to share Catholicism I would not approach someone and say, “you know, we can become God?” That Catholic doctrine can be found in paragraph 460 of the Catechism which reads: “460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”" That would require some explanation and, like mormonism, it is not the main message of the Catholic Church. But the fact of the matter is that Christianity has a very rich history in teaching man becoming like God.

Times and Seasons is a poor source to learn of LDS doctrine. For man ‘becoming like God”, here’s a far better source: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/man-potential-to-become-like-heavenly-father?lang=eng. Man may indeed become “one with the father” *as* Jesus and the Father are one.

Darren on May 17, 2012 at 11:45 PM

Oh – and you believe the Book of Mormon is written in King James English even though Joe Smith didn’t speak in the King James language and no one in New York in the 1830′s did either? And – the so-called “plates” came from a time WELL BEFORE King James? LOL

Great.

HondaV65 on May 17, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Wow horses and bees is all you got. Impressive NOT.

Again read it and pray about it but do so with an open heart.

Joseph Smith sinned with polygamy why GOD allowed him to be murdered. Read Jacob chapter 2. It makes it very clear that is wrong. I never said I believed the D & C. I believe there are several sections in it that are false doctrine.

God Jesus Christ said he went to be one with the Father and prayed we also could become one with the Father. You want to tell me what that meant. Trick question only GOD knows. Joseph Smith never began to understand it. But I believe the bible and if it says I can also become one with the Father just like Jesus who is GOD I am going to go for that. Also we now know there are countless planets with life on them most likely. Do you really think GOD has no one on them I do not.

The Bible is clear that GODs ways are not our ways. There is much we do not know. But I simply will never believe that GOD only ever created one Earth. Then spent Eternity letting people praise him. I believe he created an infinite number and will continue to create them forever. I believe I can become one with the Father thus GOD in a sense that I can never ever understand in this mortal body. If I do I understand I will be nothing like I am now. I will just be a part of whatever GOD is. There is only one GOD.

So yes I am LDS and believe it the only chosen Church on earth. But I also believe many of it’s teachings are incorrect and misunderstood.

I believe the Book of Mormon to be the most correct book of Scripture on Earth. Of course it was not written in English Joseph Smith translated it from what he called Reformed Egyptian.

The church ask us to read the Book of Mormon daily. No other book of scripture daily. But we are asked to study all books especially the Bible.

None of this stuff you do not like is taught these days. The way it is going we will probably agree in a few years and this bad stuff will no longer be taught at all. Well agree to a greater extent.

Steveangell on May 17, 2012 at 11:59 PM

Times and Seasons is a poor source to learn of LDS doctrine. For man ‘becoming like God”, here’s a far better source: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/man-potential-to-become-like-heavenly-father?lang=eng. Man may indeed become “one with the father” *as* Jesus and the Father are one.

Darren on May 17, 2012 at 11:45 PM

I simply refuse to believe that Joseph Smith knew God as he believed he did. The scriptures say No man can know GOD. Joseph Smith took his visitation by the Father and Son to mean they had bodies like we do. The scriptures are very clear that is not the case. Especially the Book of Mormon. The scriptures are very clear there is only one GOD IAM.

One of the biggest problems in the LDS church is Prophet worship. Prophets are men and do sin. Just like Brigham Young who went out when Johnstons Army was approaching and gave a very defiant speach saying things like GOD would help them destroy the Army but then in the afternoon said Brigham spoke this morning now this is from GOD. We will bury the foundation of the Temple and meet the Army with open arms.

2/3 of the Book of Mormon was sealed yet many in the Church think we have all truth. This is a huge disconnect. We do not. We are not at all taught how we could become GOD. What the three degrees in the Celestial Kingdom are. We should stick to the basics of what we do know and question if Joseph sometimes spoke in the D & C not GOD. I do not believe Section 132 was from GOD it directly conflicts with Jacob 2 which I do believe for example.

Steveangell on May 18, 2012 at 12:14 AM

Steveangell;

“God is a spirit” says nothing as to the Father’s corporality. You and I are also “spirit”. Jesus is “spirit” yet this fact does not deny the physical existence of flesh and bone, does it? God in the bible is *always* described using humanlike terms. Ancient Jews in fact, very much saw God as a man only perfected and exalted. What the LDS Church does is, in fact, restore this knowledge to man. For more on this I highly recommend you read, “In Defense of Anthropomorphism” by Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier. Cherbonnier was a highly regarded scholar of ancient Judaic and Christian theology and was a professor at Trinity College. In the link it is summarized that “Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier argues that the biblical and the Mormon understanding of God are indistinguishable.”

Do be too hasty declaring the Bible says there is one numeric God. There is no such declaration anywhere. in fact in every instance that the bible declares the Father, Son, and holy Spirit 9or just the Father and Son) as “one”, the words in both Hebrew and Greek which denote a strict numeric “oness” is never used but rather they use “one” in the sense which are very much open to meaning a “oness” in unity which is what the LDS believe. There’s also clear historic precedent for this. One early Christian father, Origen is noted for having stood with a Bishop Heracleides in declaring that there were “two gods”:

Orig.: Is the Son distinct from the Father?

Heracl.: Of course. How can he be Son if he is also Father?

Orig.: While being distinct from the Father is the Son himself also God?

Heracl.: He himself is also God.

Orig.: And do two Gods become a unity?

Heracl.: Yes.

Orig.: Do we confess two Gods?

Heracl.: Yes. The power is one.

Origen – Dialog with Heracleides

Again, LDS beliefs restores this knoledge to man but the LDs very much believe the Father, the Son, and the holy ghost are “one Eternal God”

and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

Alma 11:44

There is no conflict between D&C 132 and Jacob 2. Jacob 2 sets forth *one* condition which God may accept polygasmy. In Jacobs’ time and place it was clearly not accepted and thus their extra “wives” were nothing but adulterous relationships, just as they would be today. I do not think anyone knows exatly why polygamy was accepted by God in the Old Testament and not accepted in the New Testament but that pattern is seen in the history of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ in modern times.

Darren on May 18, 2012 at 2:50 AM

Stevengell;

One of the biggest problems in the LDS church is Prophet worship. Prophets are men and do sin. Just like Brigham Young who went out when Johnstons Army was approaching and gave a very defiant speach saying things like GOD would help them destroy the Army but then in the afternoon said Brigham spoke this morning now this is from GOD. We will bury the foundation of the Temple and meet the Army with open arms.

The LDS do NOT worship prophets. The LDS worships the Father through the Son. What I know of Brigham Young is that he was determined to defeat the oncoming army (and rightfully so) but then decided that numerically it would have been a slaughter against the mormon favor. You may take issue with a “prophet” seeminlgy changing his mind but believe me, that;s solidly biblical. Also soldly biblical would be a certain prophecy about the destruction of a city which never took place. If you’d like to talk about that I’m more than willng to listen.

2/3 of the Book of Mormon was sealed yet many in the Church think we have all truth.

We have all truth that we need. The LDS do not believe, nor ever have believed that we have “all truth”. In fact the 9th Article of Faith declares (bold mine), “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.” how can you indicate that the LDS believe we have “all truth” when the LDS believe that truth will yet to be revealed?

We are not at all taught how we could become GOD

That is emphatically incorrect. We are to be perfect like unto the Father. That can and will be done through obedience to God’s will and through the infinite grace of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. This is solidly biblical.

Darren on May 18, 2012 at 2:59 AM

Expect every aspect of Mitt’s life and beliefs to come under attack simply because this is the Chicago way. It wouldn’t matter what his religion is, but the fact that he belongs to the benign cult of LDS is just that much more ammo for them. Don’t think for one minute they won’t try to connect LDS to Islam somehow if it serves their ends. Many Christians like me believe they are both cults although at totally opposite ends of the spectrum (LDS: Life affirming. Islam: Life destroying). The majority Christian population of this country needs to know in their hearts that Mormons don’t pose a threat in any way, unlike many Muslims who want us dead or enslaved. It is a minefield that Mitt must cross and do so with extreme caution, but it’s crossable. He must not get caught up in defending the indefensible and constantly, relentlessly, mind-numbingly steer the conversation back to what is important right now and leave all religious questions for people to ponder in their own minds. If he fails to do this, he has only himself to blame. He must know what’s coming. If he doesn’t, he’s too stupid to be president.

swinia sutki on May 18, 2012 at 6:01 AM

In the post, AP says:

Obama might sustain some damage but the issue is old news for many voters…

I completely disagree about this being old news for many voters. Back in 2009, shortly after Obama became president, I was pointing out to friends and family how bad the media was during the 2008 cycle and how for instance polls showed just about everyone knew about stupid stories like how much Sarah Palin’s clothes cost and Bristol’s pregnancy, but very few knew even basic information like Obama’s grandma was a vice president at a bank, Obama attended expensive schools, or who Jeremiah Wright was. Anecdotally, hardly anyone I talked to knew who Jeremiah Wright was or anything about him. They would ask me why it didn’t come up in the campaign. I said it was because McCain wanted to avoid any appearance whatsoever of anything that could be construed as racist.

Look, it wasn’t the most important issue in the campaign, but it definitely would have hurt Obama among swing voters if they had a heavy dose of information about Reverend Wright and Obama’s long connection with him. When I said he attended Wright’s church for 20 years, NO ONE believed Obama didn’t know the type of things Wright was saying.

The problem was that Brian Ross broke the story in the 2008 Dem Primary, and by the time of the general, the media treated it as old news and did not bring it up again, and McCain refused to. And as a result, I think polls would show a surprising amount of voters, who only start checking in around September, have no idea who Rev. Wright is.

I agree Romney doesn’t have to bring it up. But there’s no reason a SuperPac couldn’t educate voters a little at some point.

willamettevalley on May 18, 2012 at 6:16 AM

Mormonism happened to be born right at the pinnacle of American racism. That racism rubbed off on the Church Founders. That’s not an excuse. That’s an explanation. The Mormons were by no means alone in that. At least they weren’t keeping slaves…I don’t think.

RBMN on May 17, 2012 at 5:46 PM

It was probably due to Joseph Smith’s weird fascination with the Masons. Apparently, “priesthood” in FreeMasonry, at least at the time, was prohibited to black people. And this, in fact, was exactly the restriction that Smith applied to blacks: they could be church members, but were not allowed to be priests.

In fact, Mormonism contains a lot of practices and rituals borrowed from FreeMasonry. Joseph Smith had already founded and was leading Mormonism when he decided to join the Masons. It appears he was aiming to bring the two together in some way, though I don’t think there’s any proof of that.

tom on May 18, 2012 at 6:43 AM

Will I discuss the least scripturally supported and most speculative doctrines in the whole of my theology with someone who doesn’t even have a framework to understand them? Not first thing.

If you ask me what I do for work, will I start by writing out the Higgs Mechanism Lagrangian? Not first thing.

You have no context or framework. So I’ll start with something true, and relevant — not possible and far-off.

Prufrock on May 17, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Apples and Oranges. You wouldn’t bring up the Higgs Mechanism Lagrangian because it’s complicated. There are a lot of doctrines in Mormonism carefully avoided because they are so recognizably un-Christian, and Mormons are busy selling themselves as just another branch of Christianity.

Classic example: the Mormon teaching that Jesus and Lucifer are “spirit-brothers.” No matter how you twist and turn, that effectively claims that Jesus was no more inherently God than Satan is, and that blows the “you can trust us, we’re just another branch of Christianity” pitch.

Now, for Mormons, this is not such a stretch, because they already believe that God was once a man, and that men may become Gods themselves. But it absolutely violates Christian doctrine in every way possible, so … Mormons don’t talk about it to people they’re hoping to convert, unless they have to.

tom on May 18, 2012 at 7:06 AM

But sorry, there are no proof in matters of faith and there NEVER will be.

Gunlock Bill on May 17, 2012 at 7:30 PM

But there is a difference in having faith in something that has been proven to exist, and faith in something that has not existed.
I have “faith” that Caesar existed, and have artifacts to back that up…but what prufrock is getting at is that there is no archeological evidence to support the myths of the Mormon’s.
It’s a simple challenge…embrace your religion and say “There is no evidence but we are hoping to find some” or state “We have a lot of evidence look ‘here’”…embrace your history, don’t run from it.
If it’s there, share it, if not, admit it and accept it.

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 7:19 AM

Is lack of evidence proof of absence?

Gunlock Bill on May 17, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Yes. By definition.

It’s a fair point that a lack of evidence for an event doesn’t prove that it didn’t happen. But when you have whole histories of populations and wars, and from a people that supposedly were Jewish, and would have known how to write, and you have zero evidence for any of it, then you’re stuck.

Joseph Smith told some of the tallest tales you’ll ever find anywhere, complete with entire Jewish civilizations transplanted to the Americas, claims that the “good” Jews were wiped out by the “bad” Jews just in time that none were left when Europeans first discovered the new world, and the invention of “Reformed Egyptian” hieroglyphics that have never been seen anywhere.

Contrast with the Biblical archaeological record, and there is no way to pretend that Mormonism is corroborated by any part of the historical record.

tom on May 18, 2012 at 7:22 AM

Now, for Mormons, this is not such a stretch, because they already believe that God was once a man, and that men may become Gods themselves. But it absolutely violates Christian doctrine in every way possible, so … Mormons don’t talk about it to people they’re hoping to convert, unless they have to.

tom on May 18, 2012 at 7:06 AM

Exactly…which is why I say they should embrace their faith and open up with the details and facts…Men can become God and rule their own world…they should rejoice in that and not hide it.
It’s awesome that they believe that someday they can have unlimited wives and have their own world…it’s a great goal to own a world and have hundreds of wives and thousands of kids.

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 7:22 AM

tom on May 18, 2012 at 7:06 AM

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 7:22 AM

No argument from me, but it doesn’t change the mission to rid our country of Obama. On day one of Mitt’s presidency, it becomes my goal to work toward his replacement by a Conservative. Until then, we are tenuous and unlikely allies. It sucks, but there it is.

swinia sutki on May 18, 2012 at 8:01 AM

They’re both fair game, as is the racist history of the democratic party

Not-a-Marxist on May 18, 2012 at 8:07 AM

Steveangell on May 17, 2012 at 11:59 PM

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on May 18, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Testing to see if this posts.

Darren on May 18, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Torn;

It was probably due to Joseph Smith’s weird fascination with the Masons. Apparently, “priesthood” in FreeMasonry, at least at the time, was prohibited to black people. And this, in fact, was exactly the restriction that Smith applied to blacks: they could be church members, but were not allowed to be priests.

You bear false witness against your neighbor. blacks were never denied the priesthood by Joseph Smith nor is there any indication whatsoever from Joseph Smith that he opposed blacks having the priesthood. Joseph Smith applied no restrictions upon blacks in receiving the Priesthood. All of that came after Joseph Smith.

In fact, Mormonism contains a lot of practices and rituals borrowed from FreeMasonry.

Name three.

Joseph Smith had already founded and was leading Mormonism when he decided to join the Masons.

That is correct. Joseph Smith thought there were certain truths he could learn from the Masons but the connection between freemasonry and Mormonism is not nearly as solid as you pretend.

You wouldn’t bring up the Higgs Mechanism Lagrangian because it’s complicated.

BINGO!!!

There are a lot of doctrines in Mormonism carefully avoided because they are so recognizably un-Christian, and Mormons are busy selling themselves as just another branch of Christianity.

You again bear false witness, sir. That is patently false. There are certain things whichthe LDS does not come right out and teach because in part they are complicated and are not part of its central purpose or belief. Its central belief is to come unto Christ. LDS theology is stuningly Christ-centered.

Classic example: the Mormon teaching that Jesus and Lucifer are “spirit-brothers.” No matter how you twist and turn, that effectively claims that Jesus was no more inherently God than Satan is, and that blows the “you can trust us, we’re just another branch of Christianity” pitch.

The LDS upholds the Father as the Creator of all things andtha includes Jesus and Satan. It also upholds Jesus as the one being who has carried out “into execution”, as Justin Martyr phrased it, the will ofthe Father in all things. That it was Jesus who became our Savior and the only way unto the Father. What is unchristian about any of this belief? All this shows is that Mormons are not *creedal* Christians but Christians they indeed are.

Now, for Mormons, this is not such a stretch, because they already believe that God was once a man, and that men may become Gods themselves. But it absolutely violates Christian doctrine in every way possible, so … Mormons don’t talk about it to people they’re hoping to convert, unless they have to.

How does this doctrine ‘violates Christian doctrine in every way possible’ when I showed in my May 17th @ 11:45 post paragraph 460 of the Catechism says the exact same thing you say makes Mormons Christian apostates? While Cathlics will give a different interpretation to their own doctrine that “God became man so tha man may become God” than that of the LDS, if you ook at the person who originally said that, St. Athanasius, you’ll learn that by ‘man may become God’ he meant in Christ and in power and that is precisely what the LDS believe. Just for your information, ST. Athanasius was the primary orator against Arius and in favor of what became the Holy Trinity at the council of Nicea.

Darren on May 18, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Jeez!—And what about the Democrat Party’s racial history!?

stillings on May 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM

More intellectual bankruptcy and false comparisons.

Rev. Wright is part of Obama’s personal history, right up until he ran for President.

The history of the Mormon Church is not Romney’s personal history.

taznar on May 18, 2012 at 10:41 AM

The other way to look at this is Democrats are pandering to religious bigots. Kind of like Nixon’s supposed “Southern Strategy” of pandering to racists.

taznar on May 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM

torn;

Joseph Smith told some of the tallest tales you’ll ever find anywhere, complete with entire Jewish civilizations transplanted to the Americas, claims that the “good” Jews were wiped out by the “bad” Jews just in time that none were left when Europeans first discovered the new world, and the invention of “Reformed Egyptian” hieroglyphics that have never been seen anywhere.

Do you realize that the Book of Mormon story itself makes no claim whatsoever that those who came to the americas were Jewish? It’s so obvious that people like you are more content to regularly bear false witness against your neighbor than to actually learn about your neighbor so long as it makes your neighbor look bad. Quaint.

As for “reformed Egyptian”, stricty speaking, you’re correct that “reformed Egyptian” has not been found but you need to keep up with some ofthe latest scholarship on this matter before making yet another absolute claim which is absolutely not as you present it to be. Brian D. Stubbs is a linguist and specializes in ancient American and Near Eastern languages. His research is showing linguistic patterns fo translation between Arabic, Hebrew and Egyptian within the Uto-Aztecan language family. His work is very promising and exciting. Lingistic scholars are amzaed at what he’s found ths far.

Contrast with the Biblical archaeological record, and there is no way to pretend that Mormonism is corroborated by any part of the historical record.

Anoter patently false accusation. You are a pretentious one, aren’t you?

Darren on May 18, 2012 at 10:51 AM

right2bright;

Exactly…which is why I say they should embrace their faith and open up with the details and facts…Men can become God and rule their own world…they should rejoice in that and not hide it.
It’s awesome that they believe that someday they can have unlimited wives and have their own world…it’s a great goal to own a world and have hundreds of wives and thousands of kids.

As one who has helped exMormons see the light of “true Christianity”, you seem a master in joining the ranks of torn, Steveangell, HondaV65 and other pompous self-righteous bearers of false witness against the Mormons. There is not official LDS doctrine which says one will have “inlimited wives”. Heck, there is no LDS doctrinal requirement to have more than one wife for exaltation or eternal life in Christ. There is no official LDS doctrine about getting your own world, ‘hundreds of wives and thousands of kids’. your goal is to make mormonism silly and out of the mainstream of rational thought. To achieve that goal simple moral standards are set aside that you may libel Mormonsim in whatever manner you seem fit.

Hold on, I…I think…I think I’m seeing true Christianity now…wait..oh, no, that was acid reflux. Carry on right2bright.

Darren on May 18, 2012 at 10:59 AM

If the main topic and DEBATE associated with the electability of the current or replacement POTUS one would have to argue that religion in general would become…. Those that have a religion vs. those that don’t.

Once we all start down that path then there will be NO ONE EVER qualified based on their belief or non-belief in anything.

Do people believe in a God? In Angels? In ghosts or spirits? An afterlife? Leprechauns and fairies? Magic and Satan? Witchcraft? Miracles?

I am not going to get mired down or distracted by the attack on Mormonism or what Romney believes in his heart between he and HIS God….. I will decided if he is qualified to lead this country based on his history and achievements of what he has already demonstrated.

A curiosity always something disingenuous about the democrat party and the liberal ideology they claim to be for freedom yet attack freedom at every opportunity through intimidation and character assassination…. always!

Why is it that they will go after a whole religion and people (Mormon’s and the LDS church in this case) yet, not have any interest whatsoever in a 20 year+ indoctrination period and attachment to an openly racially bigoted church,pastor, congregation and current President of the United States that in fact had to have prescribed to SOME part of of it’s sermons, preaching and active participation in spreading it’s doctrine outside of it’s very own structural enclave?

Reverend Jeremiah Wright and any other religious belief system that Barack Husein Obama was taught, by either of his parents, step parents, Grand Parents, aunts, uncles, neighbors, friends and schools HAVE indeed had an impact on his life philosophy and has been given a “Silence is Golden” and hands off don’t question Barack’s associations and beliefs, background and I am one of many that DO think it needs to be addressed and checked out. Whether or not we are allowed to do it is yet another incredibly frustrating aspect.

ActinUpinTexas on May 18, 2012 at 11:01 AM

I suggest that these arguments violate the genetic fallacy, dishonestly overlooking changes from the past related to the current situation.

A much better case would be the Democratic Party’s history and political dependence on the Klan. The late Sen. Byrd was a Kleagle, that is a recruiter and he had a great deal of influence on the party.

Mitt Romney is the candidate, and it is his views rather than those of his tradition, especially those that have passed away.

Why don’t we have that level of honesty here?

Denver Bob on May 18, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Hold on, I…I think…I think I’m seeing true Christianity now…wait..oh, no, that was acid reflux. Carry on right2bright.

Darren on May 18, 2012 at 10:59 AM

I never said they were required, or that it will happen, look who is “bearing false witness”.

I never said “will” I stated “they can”, now you are saying they can’t?

I stated they believe that…so you are saying that Mormon’s do not believe you can have multiple wives (celestial or otherwise)? That they cannot have thousands of kids? That man cannot become God and have their own world?
Really? You are now backing away from that? You deny that, or are you parsing words or “bearing false witness”?

that was acid reflux

No, probable a burning in the breast…carry on with your “bearing false witness” and parsing of words…you very well know what we are speaking of and you are afraid to embrace your religion, which I think is quite odd…that someone is so afraid of the truth of their religion or that it is so “complicated” that they hide it.

I read something about the darkness cannot bear the light…bring your faith out from under a bushel…

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 11:20 AM

right2bright;

I never said they were required, or that it will happen, look who is “bearing false witness”.

Here’s what you *did* say, sir:

Exactly…which is why I say they should embrace their faith and open up with the details and facts…Men can become God and rule their own world…they should rejoice in that and not hide it.

This was a vote of confidence, with no qualifications or conditions placed on that confidence, in torn’s statement which said:

Now, for Mormons, this is not such a stretch, because they already believe that God was once a man, and that men may become Gods themselves. But it absolutely violates Christian doctrine in every way possible, so … Mormons don’t talk about it to people they’re hoping to convert, unless they have to.

Notice tom (I just noticed it is not “torn”, my apologies to him) said ‘absolutely violates’. He declared ain absolute terms Mormon belif in becoming gods as violating Christian docrine, ‘in every possible way’. Now you’re trying to qualify your agreement with tom saying that you “never” said this belief, which tom said ‘absolute[ly]‘ violates Christian doctrine, is a mormon “requirement”? If so, thank you for omiting that qualifier in your original post. Why didn’t youp lace it there in the first place? My educated guess is because that would damper your post making mormons sound ridiculous which is clearly your main objective; not to post on what Mormons believe or how they belive their doctrines.

As a suporting paragraph to that vote of confidence, here’s the remainder of what you said:

It’s awesome that they believe that someday they can have unlimited wives and have their own world…it’s a great goal to own a world and have hundreds of wives and thousands of kids.

Saying that Mormons believe they “can” become gods is correct and I picked no point of contention on that aspect of your post.

I stated they believe that…so you are saying that Mormon’s do not believe you can have multiple wives (celestial or otherwise)?

Er, um, you said “unlimited” wives, not “multiple” wives. In terms of LDS faith and worship they do not believe they will, or even, could, have “unlimited wives”. Yes, they do believe they “can” have “multiple” wives but nowhere in LDS official doctrine is it taught that they can have “unlimited” wives.

You also said that Mormons believe they can/will have their own world. Again, in terms of LDS faith and worship they do NOT believe tey can/will have their own world. That’s entirely speculative and nowhere is it official doctrine. You seem to have missed pointing out that qualifier as well.

Really? You are now backing away from that? You deny that, or are you parsing words or “bearing false witness”?

I’m not backing away from anything, sir. i am simply pointing you in the right direction. Afterall, you got Mormons to bring to the light of “true Christianity”. Misrepresenting their beliefs may turn some away from the LDS beliefs but it will never point them to “true Christianity”.

you very well know what we are speaking of and you are afraid to embrace your religion

I do and you’ve yet to aknowledge that you erroneously posted what Mormons believe. I shine the light towards you and now you’re free to choose how to act upon it. I’m sure you’ll choose righteously.

that someone is so afraid of the truth of their religion or that it is so “complicated” that they hide it

When you see someone here who has done that, let me know.

Darren on May 18, 2012 at 11:47 AM

I told you so. And getting into the weeds won’t work. It never does. It didn’t work when the Dems put out the story that Sarah Palin tried to “ban books” or that Sarah’s son was really Bristol’s son conceived with Todd Palin. And didn’t they use some teaching from a church she was visiting against her? She wasn’t even a member of the church, and it got hung around her neck.

The race card has just been played and Romney has left the field. If Romney takes the high road and depends on the natural revulsion of the American people, he might be as disappointed as I was waiting for the outrage for Palin. It never happened and even reasonable people, to this day, call her dangerous and dumb.

Perhaps Obama has already over-played his hand with the war on women and the war on old people and the war on blacks and hispanics. Maybe. We won’t know until it plays out and it will play out. There was a Washington Post writer just this morning who said Romney can TRY to keep on message, but he didn’t set the message, “they” (meaning the news media) did. They’ve just signaled what that message will be.

I do hope Romney has some contigency plans and they’d better not be the victim card. Calling someone a bigot for copying and pasting is not sufficient.

Portia46 on May 18, 2012 at 12:04 PM

When you see someone here who has done that, let me know.

Darren on May 18, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Okay, you…you are now saying that God’s cannot have “unlimited wives”? How many can they have, what is the limit?

Er, um, you said “unlimited” wives, not “multiple” wives. In terms of LDS faith and worship they do not believe they will, or even, could, have “unlimited wives”. Yes, they do believe they “can” have “multiple” wives but nowhere in LDS official doctrine is it taught that they can have “unlimited” wives.

You are parsing words, if there is a limit, please let us know…

You also said that Mormons believe they can/will have their own world. Again, in terms of LDS faith and worship they do NOT believe tey can/will have their own world. That’s entirely speculative and nowhere is it official doctrine. You seem to have missed pointing out that qualifier as well.

So, you are saying that man cannot become a God and have their own world? That can’t happen, or are you parsing the words and saying it is known, but not “official doctrine”…either you believe it or not.

Some of your “prophets” believed it:

Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.48:

The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fulness of his kingdom. In other words we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fulness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring. We will have an endless eternity for this.

As I stated…just embrace the truth and you will be free…there is no shame in exposing your beliefs, it’s a great belief for you. You can have eternal life, eternal multiple wives, eternal offspring that will populate a world you rule as God…embrace it and rejoice in your belief.
Your “prophets” can’t be wrong, if they are, than they are not prophets, and I do believe Fielding was a prophet.
Was he wrong? Was he misguided? Or was he speaking the “truth”? I think he was speaking the Mormon truth, and it is something for you to be proud of and spread the word…you can become a God, have unlimited children, populate a world and rule it for all eternity.

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 12:19 PM

but he didn’t set the message, “they” (meaning the news media) did. They’ve just signaled what that message will be.

Portia46 on May 18, 2012 at 12:04 PM

No, I think Mitt is wise enough now, and savvy enough not to entirely let that happen.
As each interview progresses, he will shame the journalist into focusing on the right issues.
First, he can’t afford to be sucked into this “Mormon/Christian” debate, he will lose, as the Mormon defenders have found, they have weak arguments that have to be parsed to make sense to them, multiple/unlimited, that kind of argument, Mitt is too well schooled to fall into that.
He won’t let the “gay” issue dominate either, he has already humiliated some journalists.
No, he knows to focus on energy, unemployment, economy…he may not be my first choice, but he is a good choice and much more intellect going into an interview than the person across the table.

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Wow, lots of anti-mormon bigots here. Most of the gang, too. Honda, right2bright (who knows full well that he or she is very determined to lie about the LDS church’s teachings).

right2bright has real issues with the concept of a living God, that’s all. God said all that God said 2000 years ago and then died or something, but will never, can never, speak again.

As for the doctrine of deification, I believe Christ when He said that we are heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ. Romans, 8:17. (note, a Pauline epistle, no less!!!!!)

Since an heir inherits what their Father has, and a joit heir participates fully, what else can it mean that we get to inherit what God is, and what Christ is?

Or do you have another explanation for why the early church fully believed in deification, right2bright?

Discuss it with them if you have a problem, not with the LDS church.

Vanceone on May 18, 2012 at 12:32 PM

No, he knows to focus on energy, unemployment, economy…he may not be my first choice, but he is a good choice and much more intellect going into an interview than the person across the table.

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 12:27 PM

I hope you’re right, but recent history tells me that voters are strangely suseptible to liars and street fighting. After all, there’s almost half the population who thinks things are going in the right direction, economy-wise. The people who made Kim Kardashian a wealthy woman can decide this election.

Portia46 on May 18, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Many Christians like me believe they are both cults although at totally opposite ends of the spectrum (LDS: Life affirming. Islam: Life destroying).

swinia sutki on May 18, 2012 at 6:01 AM

Christianity is also a cult.

Definition of CULT

1: formal religious veneration : worship

2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents

3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents

4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator

5a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

YUP!!!
Christianity is a CULT!!!!

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Vanceone on May 18, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Funny, you call me an “anti-mormon” bigot, but you believe that the Mormon/LDS is the only true church, not mine, so you aren’t an “anti-Christian” bigot?
Just because someone doesn’t believe in a faith, doesn’t make them a bigot…or because someone doesn’t allow another to falsely represent a religion they are a bigot.
You have not stated where I am wrong…just call names…
Are you saying that Mormon’s don’t believe you can become exactly like God, a God? That they cannot have multiple wives (number is not known), or unlimited children, or at least enough to populate a world? You think I am wrong exposing that? Or you think that is “anti-mormon” to bring that out in the open?

“Then will they become Gods…they will never cease to increase and to multiply, worlds without end. When they receive their crowns, their dominions, they then will be prepared to frame earths like unto ours and to people them in the same manner as we have been brought forth by our parents, by our Father and God” Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 17:143

Notice the word “worlds” as a plural, dominions, frame earths (plural)…that was from Brigham Young, was he wrong? No, what I am saying is, embrace your religion and rejoice in it, don’t hide what you believe and pretend it doesn’t exist…it does and you should be proud of it. Hardly an “anti-Mormon” bigot stand, I am saying you should be proud of your faith, not ashamed.
And as far as “living God”, I never said any such thing, living prophet I have a problem with…aren’t you the one who a year or so ago said that if one of the Mormon prophets came to you and asked for your 14 year old daughter (if you had one) hand in marriage you would give her up?
You embrace that part of your faithful legacy, child brides, I find it repulsive and all to “historical”, and never in a positive way.
You place your faith in men, I place my faith in God…who came to earth as a Man, but did not come from a Man…a big difference. And I believe in only one God, one true God, not a bunch of men god-wannabees…it’s a difference of opinion.
Yours is a great faith, believing in multiple wives, unlimited children, your own world and being a God…embrace it and rejoice in that.
I am and always will be a servant, undeserving of His love, of the one true God…

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 12:46 PM

: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

YUP!!!
Christianity is a CULT!!!!

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 12:44 PM

If you consider a few hundred million as a small group…it gets funnier with each post from you guys…I think most people have the discernment to understand what a “cult”. But desperate people reach out for desperate solutions.
And no, Mormon’s have passed out of the cult stage, they are one of the great Abrahamic religions…Muslim, Jew, Christian, Mormon…each one having a similar “birth” and foundation, but decidedly different.
Most religions rejoice and embrace their differences, Mormon’s have a difficult time doing that…they are different from any other and they should learn to live with that.

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Classic example: the Mormon teaching that Jesus and Lucifer are “spirit-brothers.”

This, of course is FALSE.

It is what Evangelical Anti-Mormons teach about what Mormons believe.

They grossly misrepresent the rather simple concept of the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of men.

No matter how you twist and turn, that effectively claims that Jesus was no more inherently God than Satan is, and that blows the “you can trust us, we’re just another branch of Christianity” pitch.

A false conclusion base upon a false premise.

Now, for Mormons, this is not such a stretch, because they already believe that God was once a man, . . .

So do nearly ALL other Christians. Or do you reject that Christ was once a man and is now God?

. . . and that men may become Gods themselves.

The doctrine of theosis is held by more Christians than just Mormons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_%28Christian%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_%28Eastern_Orthodox_theology%29

http://www.greekorthodox.org.au/general/spirituality/theosis

But it absolutely violates Christian doctrine in every way possible,

Obviously NOT!!!

so … Mormons don’t talk about it to people they’re hoping to convert, unless they have to.

tom on May 18, 2012 at 7:06 AM

Whatever!

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 12:55 PM

right2bright;

Okay, you…you are now saying that God’s cannot have “unlimited wives”? How many can they have, what is the limit?

Who knows and in terms of LDS faith and worship, who cares. “How many wives” one can have is not even a spec of the thelogical radar of the LDS faithful. You’re taking a very peripheral idea which isn’t even LDS official doctrine and making it sound like it’s an important tenet ofthe LDS belifs. It’s not and it makes you a bearer of false witness against your neightbor. If you wantto talk about the doctrine of oplygamy, then use D&C 132. All official doctrine of polygamy is pretty much rightthere.

You are parsing words, if there is a limit, please let us know…

Again, who knows and who cares.

So, you are saying that man cannot become a God and have their own world?

Man may become God is true, butthere is nohing official that declares any such thing as having their own world. Notethat I placed the qualifier “official”.

That can’t happen, or are you parsing the words and saying it is known, but not “official doctrine”…either you believe it or not.

I do believe I stated what I believe. Hold on, let me check the vast archives of this thread’s posts and see…oh, yeah, here’s what I said:

That’s entirely speculative and nowhere is it official doctrine.

Right there I said it is ‘entirely speculative”. That’s what I believe and good on me cuz it’s true.

Some of your “prophets” believed it:

You’re finally making a more, howbeit still desiring improvement, statement about Mormonism. “Some prphets believed it” is correct but equally correct is that “Times and Seasons” is NOT official LDS doctrine and therefore a very poor sourse of information to show “what Mormons believe”. You may use Times and Teasons to show what Joseph Fielding Smith may have said at one point in time about the gods and their planets or anything else but it is only his idea at a specific time. Nothing more. Prophets are motral men like you and me and are free to develope their own understanding of the doctrines of Christ just like you and me. In order to show that teir ideas are “what Mormons believe” their beliefs would have gone through a proceess of receiving sustaining votes at two levels of LDS leadership and among the general membership ofthe LDS church. “We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring” has never gone through any such process andtherefore NOT what Mormons belive and NOT official LDS doctrine. note that you do not eve provide any context or background information regarding Joseph Fielding Smith. That’s a very good reason I don’t use Times and Seasons as a source of information to show “what Mormons belive” for neither I know all its background. So, simply put, don’t use Times and Seasons or any other unofficial sources of information to “show what Mormons believe”.

there is no shame in exposing your beliefs

That is correct nut unfortunately for you there seems to be no shame in misrepresenting them either. thus far you only seem content to double down on what you said with only minimal improvement in accuracy of depection.

Your “prophets” can’t be wrong

Sure they can. Starting with Joseph Smith’s own words, the can be wrong. All prophets “can be wrong”, even biblical prophet’s “were wrong” in the exact same sense that you’re portraying LDS prophets here. Interestingly enough, he’re also part of your Joseph Fielding Smith’s word citation:

To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences

‘a man and his wife‘ were his words, no? Hmmmm, no mention of “unlmited wives”.

Darren on May 18, 2012 at 12:59 PM

right2bright;

First, he can’t afford to be sucked into this “Mormon/Christian” debate, he will lose, as the Mormon defenders have found, they have weak arguments that have to be parsed to make sense to them, multiple/unlimited, that kind of argument, Mitt is too well schooled to fall into that.

You’re a silly man, right. He can’t win because this is not a religious movement he’s leading. It’s political and thus it’s naturally prudent not to get bogged down in religeous quarrelling. You just couldn’t say something that simple without taking a swipe at the Mormons, eh?

Darren on May 18, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Classic example: the Mormon teaching that Jesus and Lucifer are “spirit-brothers.”

This, of course is FALSE.

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 12:55 PM

So who is right? You are these people…this is what you get when you try to hide the truth…

In the Discourses of Brigham Young, on Pg.53-54 he lets it be known that Lucifer is the second son, the one known as “Son of the Morning.”

“Who will redeem the earth, who will go forth and make the sacrifice for the earth and all things it contains?” The Eldest Son said: “Here am I”; and then he added, “Send me.” But the second one, which was “Lucifer, Son of the Morning,” said, “Lord, here am I, send me, I will redeem every son and daughter of Adam and Eve that lives on the earth, or that ever goes on the earth.”

Spencer W. Kimball, Conference Report, April 1964, Pg.95

“There is another power in this world forceful and vicious. In the wilderness of Judaea, on the temple’s pinnacles and on the high mountain, a momentous contest took place between two brothers, Jehovah and Lucifer, sons of Elohim.”

And many more…how many of your “prophets” are wrong and you right? Or is it they are right and you are wrong?

Someone is “It is what Evangelical Anti-Mormons teach about what Mormons believe”…is it Young, Kimball or Gunlock Bill that is the evangelical anti-mormon?

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 1:04 PM

But there is a difference in having faith in something that has been proven to exist,

If it has been “proven” then it no longer requires “faith”.

Just so you know, or did you forget,
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

I have “faith” that Caesar existed, and have artifacts to back that up…

And that is NOT faith.

“There is no evidence but we are hoping to find some”

Ah, but there is evidence. Just not the kind you insist upon.

“We have a lot of evidence look ‘here’”…embrace your history

Am there, doing that. The very existence of the Book of Mormon is EVIDENCE. DUH!!!

Plus there are large amounts of internal evidences, for those willing to see.

If it’s there, share it, if not, admit it and accept it.

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 7:19 AM

The book is available and there are numerous sources for the evidences for those who are willing to look for them.

But they won’t find them on those ubiquitous anti-Mormons sites.

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Yes. By definition.

tom on May 18, 2012 at 7:22 AM

So, it was proven that OJ did NOT kill his wife because the proof wasn’t found?

Really?

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Right2bright,

We have a leak in the boat and these people bring a hatchet.

Do you now see why I’m worried? It’s not the nuclear threat; it’s groundmines planted as far as the internet can see. And they don’t care who gets blown up.

Portia46 on May 18, 2012 at 1:08 PM

But they won’t find them on those ubiquitous anti-Mormons sites.

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Well I guess than National Geographic is “anti-mormon”, your problem is you think if someone doesn’t believe what you post, they are “anti-mormon”, and if they don’t believe what a “mormon” states they are anti-mormon.
So, is Brigham Young anti-Mormon, is National Geographic, or any number of archeologists “anti-mormon” because they can’t find any coinage, pottery, bones from battles, etc. It that your definition, either believe whatever we state or be a bigot?
You don’t believe in the trinity, have I called you a bigot? No, you don’t believe in what I believe…leave that card behind and focus on the truth…but then the Truth will not be what you want to see.

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 1:08 PM

The book is available and there are numerous sources for the evidences for those who are willing to look for them.

But they won’t find them on those ubiquitous anti-Mormons sites.

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Great, give us the link with all the archeological finds…thanks…everytime I Google, I get these horrible bigot sites like National Geographic and other institutions…I mean even one bigot site said the Egyptian Hieroglyphics that Smith touted as being a farce…imagine, the nerve…

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 1:11 PM

If you consider a few hundred million as a small group…it gets funnier with each post from you guys…

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 12:53 PM

You are about the dumbest anti-Mormon I have come across.

What part of the highlighted parts do not apply to Christianity?

Definition of CULT

1: formal religious veneration : worship

2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents

3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents

4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator

5a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

What a moron you are.

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Portia46 on May 18, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Think, they spent an hour a day for several years being fed this stuff…they have no choice, they are disowned when they find the Truth, it’s heartbreaking some of the families I have worked with. Not much is sadder than a person in a Mormon family who becomes a Christian, so I have no problem with them taking a strong stand, they feel they have no choice…but many open their eyes and see the Truth and it is joyous when that happens.
If they just spend some time reading about the Tanners (whom I am sure are taught to be “evil”), they would begin a great journey of faith.

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 1:15 PM

What a moron you are.

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Yeah, and you are saying every religion is a cult…keep calling names, it fits you.
As I stated, most have the intellect and discernment to understand what a cult is…and btw, notice I stated Mormon’s are not a cult…I guess you think they are, and I don’t.

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 1:17 PM

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Still looking for the phrase “spirit brothers”.

That is an Evangelical anti-Mormon phrase, not a Mormon one.

And even though you have been told this NUMEROUS times and are too stupid to get it, Job described Satan as a son of God.

Job 1:6 ¶ Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.
Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.

According to the Bible, Satan is a son of God.

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Well I guess than National Geographic is “anti-mormon”,

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 1:08 PM

National Geographic’s ignorance of the evidence that is available is not a problem to those who are aware of it.

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Yeah, and you are saying every religion is a cult…

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Well DUH!!!

BY DEFINITION they are, or can’t you read plain English?

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 1:24 PM

A quick search of ALL LDS scriptures and study guides for the phrase “spirit brothers” results in ZERO finds!!

http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/search?type=words&last=%22spirit+brothers%22&help=&wo=checked&search=%22spirit+brothers%22&iw=all&tx=checked&af=checked&hw=checked&sw=checked&anonymous_element_1_changed=

Like I said, it is an Evangelical anti-Mormon created phrase.

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Classic example: the Mormon teaching that Jesus and Lucifer are “spirit-brothers.”

This, of course is FALSE.

According to the Bible, Satan is a son of God.
(btw, I am not the one who used the phrase “spirit brothers”)

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 1:18 PM

If Satan is a son of God, and Jesus is son of God…than why do you state that it is false to say they are brothers?
You seem to have a problem bouncing around…are they brothers or not…if so, why do you say it is anti-Mormon to state that, and if they aren’t, why did you just post they are? Weird…but I am sure you will explain.

The problem is, I gave you statements from you “prophets” and are different than what you state, and you ignore when we quote your prophets…not our words but the official LDS words.

Well DUH!!!

BY DEFINITION they are, or can’t you read plain English?

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 1:24 PM

So to you there is no difference from a mainline religion and a cult…I and about 98% of the people think differently.
I think their is a distinction between a cult and a mainline religion, that is why we have the name “cult”…but you and I disagree.
So no problem with you calling Mormon’s a cult? See where your line of reasoning gets you in trouble?

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Like I said, it is an Evangelical anti-Mormon created phrase.

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Good, I am not the one who used that phrase…I just quoted your prophets as saying they are brothers.
You say they are false in their teaching…take it up with your LDS and tell them their prophets were wrong…or, gulp, admit you made an error…

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 1:35 PM

If Satan is a son of God, and Jesus is son of God…than why do you state that it is false to say they are brothers?

You are having trouble grasping the concept that the phrase “spirit brothers” had its origins in Evangelical anti-Mormonism.

The fact that all born on this earth are spirit children of the Father is found in the Bible.

Heb 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

You seem to have a problem bouncing around…are they brothers or not…

You just don’t get it. Satan was disowned/disinherited due to his rebellion. He is no longer a member of the family.

if so, why do you say it is anti-Mormon to state that, and if they aren’t, why did you just post they are? Weird…but I am sure you will explain.

You morons keep claiming that we believe that their original spirit parentage imbues them with more in common than we actually do.

Cain and Abel had the same parentage, and yet look how much different they were.

The problem is, I gave you statements from you “prophets” and are different than what you state,

Not exactly accurate.

and you ignore when we quote your prophets

Actually, it is you that is ignoring the difference between what you are claiming and what they are actually saying.

So to you there is no difference from a mainline religion and a cult…

According to the definition of cult, they are both cults.

I and about 98% of the people think differently.

And IGNORANTLY so.

I think their is a distinction between a cult and a mainline religion, that is why we have the name “cult”…but you and I disagree.

No, you and the Dictionary disagree.

So no problem with you calling Mormon’s a cult? See where your line of reasoning gets you in trouble?

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 1:33 PM

It is you that has a problem with being rightly called a cult.

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Good, I am not the one who used that phrase…

Go back and look. It wasn’t them that used the phrase “spirit brothers” it was you.

I just quoted your prophets as saying they are brothers.

Still not getting are you. “spirit brothers” is an Evangelical anti-Mormon shibboleth.

You say they are false in their teaching…take it up with your LDS and tell them their prophets were wrong…or, gulp, admit you made an error…

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 1:35 PM

I am saying that you are misrepresenting their language.

Do you believe the Bible when it claims that Satan is a son of God?

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 1:51 PM

I guess you have a problem with the truth…your prophets said they were brothers, I gave you the actual quotes.

Spencer W. Kimball, Conference Report, April 1964, Pg.95

“There is another power in this world forceful and vicious. In the wilderness of Judaea, on the temple’s pinnacles and on the high mountain, a momentous contest took place between two brothers, Jehovah and Lucifer, sons of Elohim.”

See where he states “two brothers” pretty obvious. Brighan Young quote just as obvious.

And I will state again…I did not use the phrase “spirit brothers”, at least be honest and truthful, even when the obvious is pointed out you continue with your deceit…I didn’t use that phrase.
You are fixated on something you imagine…but it fits.

And how do you suddenly make a “brother” no longer part of the family…

Satan was disowned/disinherited due to his rebellion.

You can “disown” someone, but a brother is a brother, and that is what your prophets called them…what did they mean if not brothers?

Doesn’t this kind of shake you up a little? Prophets say one thing, you believe another, eventually (if your honest) you have to come to grips like the Tanners did…you now think that all religions are cults, you think that I stated “spirit brothers” when I didn’t, you think the prophets mean something else besides what they stated, how much machinations do you go through to defend something like this…it’s amazing.

I will wait for your apology on the “spirit brothers” thing, I am sure you are just confused…in fact positive you are.

All religions are cults to you…fantastic, amazing…discernment, look it up.

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 2:07 PM

right2bright:
Jeez, you are so intellectually dishonest, it is amazing. Cult is, as gunlock points out, a recognized descriptor of any and every religious sect or system of belief. Thus we hear of the “Jewish cult at the time of Moses.” We hear of the Christian cult. Islamic.

Under those definitions, indeed EVERY religious set of beliefs is a cult.

You, on the other hand, are using it as a perjorative in an attempt to beat Mormons over the head with it. “OOOOHH, MORMONS ARE A SCARY CULT!!!! Look at what some leader said in 1843 in some town in middle Utah–that proves it!!!!!! BURN THEM!”

The arrogance and scaremongering, let alone the intellectual dishonesty you always, without fail, display is staggering.

Vanceone on May 18, 2012 at 2:23 PM

I guess you have a problem with the truth…your prophets said they were brothers, I gave you the actual quotes.

You are still not grasping the concept here. Did you not notice that the phrase “spirit brothers” was NOT found in that statement?

See where he states “two brothers” pretty obvious.

You are still not grasping the concept here. Did you not notice that the phrase “spirit brothers” was NOT found in that statement?

And I will state again…I did not use the phrase “spirit brothers”, at least be honest and truthful,

It is that phrase that I had issue with. It is that phrase that you have attempted to defend, so, at least be honest and truthful about it.

even when the obvious is pointed out you continue with your deceit…I didn’t use that phrase.
You are fixated on something you imagine…but it fits.

It is that phrase that I had issue with. It is that phrase that you have attempted to defend.

And how do you suddenly make a “brother” no longer part of the family…

Satan was disowned/disinherited due to his rebellion.

You can “disown” someone, but a brother is a brother, and that is what your prophets called them…what did they mean if not brothers?

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 2:07 PM

He was disowned/disinherited so what is your problem?

Let’s be honest about it. You anti-Mormon morons simply trot out this drivel simply for the shock value. You rip it from its context and splatter it all over.

It is a total misrepresentation of the concept of the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of men.

So, be honest and just admit it.

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 2:27 PM

right2bright:
Jeez, you are so intellectually dishonest, it is amazing.

Vanceone on May 18, 2012 at 2:23 PM

He has been that way for YEARS!!!

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 2:28 PM

You, on the other hand, are using it as a perjorative in an attempt to beat Mormons over the head with it. “OOOOHH, MORMONS ARE A SCARY CULT!!!! Look at what some leader said in 1843 in some town in middle Utah–that proves it!!!!!! BURN THEM!”

The arrogance and scaremongering, let alone the intellectual dishonesty you always, without fail, display is staggering.

Vanceone on May 18, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Look back pal and tell me where I used it as a “pejorative”, in fact I specifically stated I don’t think Mormon/LDS is a cult…talk about being disingenuous, you guys will put anything into someones post, no matter how dishonest.
The fact is…I think the definition is much more defined than “any and all” religions, I think it is meant to describe specific offshoots, or “new” religions, Jeffers, Jones, Heaven’s Gate, or that kooky family who protests soldiers deaths, snake handlers, etc. It’s just how someone perceives a definition, and I think most people think that way. There is nothing nefarious about being more descriptive by saying I think Cult is more definitive than all and any religion…and since I specifically stated that it was not I saying Mormon’s are a cult, but one of the four great Abrahamic religion, addresses your faux outrage.

And no, Mormon’s have passed out of the cult stage, they are one of the great Abrahamic religions…Muslim, Jew, Christian, Mormon…each one having a similar “birth” and foundation, but decidedly different.

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 12:53 PM

And of course you are not outraged by the false accusation that I am using the word “spirit brothers” in some bigotted way, I never even used that word.
Once again, you both show that you have no compunction at creating a myth where no truth exists…

The arrogance and scaremongering, let alone the intellectual dishonesty you always, without fail, display is staggering.

Vanceone on May 18, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Seeing as you created something out of nothing…who is doing the “scaremongering”…pretty obvious.

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 2:40 PM

He has been that way for YEARS!!!

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 2:28 PM

So now you show me where I stated or posted “spirit brothers”…than you can talk about being intellectually dishonest…
I will wait for your post or your apology…let’s see how “honest” you are…

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 2:43 PM

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 2:43 PM

I was referring to you being “so intellectually dishonest” and you have been for years.

Take this as just one example.

Third, Mormon facts like Jesus was a polygamist, is abhorrent to most Christians.

right2bright on December 3, 2007 at 10:29 AM

It is not LDS doctrine (or “facts”) that “Jesus was a polygamist”. Statements by a few individuals don’t doctrine make.

For you to represent it as “Mormon facts” is “intellectually dishonest” to be sure.

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 3:31 PM

wouldn’t be the first time the Democrats used Mormonism against a candidate, they tried to use it against Goldwater, apparently his family was part of the group that left Utah for Mexico when poligmeny was outlawed in Utah.

RonK on May 17, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Incorrect. Goldwater’s grandfather was Michael Goldwasser who came to America to avoid induction into the Russian army. He became a trader out of San Francisco and established trading posts in Arizona.

You must be thinking of the Udalls, and Morris was a Democrat.

Portia46 on May 18, 2012 at 3:35 PM

No, what I am saying is, embrace your religion and rejoice in it, don’t hide what you believe and pretend it doesn’t exist…it does and you should be proud of it. Hardly an “anti-Mormon” bigot stand, I am saying you should be proud of your faith, not ashamed.

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 12:46 PM

The problem I see, right2bright, is the line of questioning you repeatedly use and do so in a manner to show your benevolence but in reality it’s very condescending. Cited post above you quoted from Journal of Discourse to show Brigham Young teaching that we may get planets someday. Here’s a line of questioning which shows why doing so is not ingenuous in nature. Does citing Brigham Young in JoD show what he believed about a specific doctrine? Yes. Was Brigham Young free to believe what he did? Yes, he was. Did he ever teach the doctrine of people getting their own planets someday as official LDS doctrine? No, he did not. So, do Mormons believe that they may get their own planets someday? No, they do not. May individual Mormons believe that they may get their own planets someday? Yes, they may. I’m one of them and so was Brigham Young. May Mormons believe that in no way will anyone get their own planets someday? Yes, they may. Would that affect their standing in the LDS Church? In and of itself, not at all. Could individual Mormons believe Brigham Young erred in teaching that someday we can all get our own planets? Yes, they may. Would that affect their standing in the LDS Church? In and of itself, it will not.

We can extend similar questions to cover the JoD. Is that work part of official LDS doctrine? No, it is not. Has JoD ever been part of official LDS doctrine? No, it has not. May it be used in the LDS Church? Absolutely? If so, in what context? In the context of supporting what is already official LDS doctrine.

Prophets are not infallible, right2bright. They are mortal men like you and me. They always have been and always will be “until that perfect day”. Can they err? Certainly. Have they erred? Certainly. Have biblical prophets erred? Certainly. Have they taught things which did not pan out as taught? Certainly. Does any of this make them false prophets? It most certainly does not. Yet this is the crux of your posts: cite what an LDS leader believed to be a prophet said, ask an LDS defender here if either they or the prophet is correct thus creating a catch 22 questionnaire. Answer “Yes”, that the prophet was wrong and thus Mormons believe in “false prophets”. Say “no, the prophet was correct” and thus Mormons believe in bizarre ideas like getting their own planets someday. You have little to no desire to learn of the LDS, simply use their teachings to show them outside mainstream rationale and outside biblical teachings. As you can see, “yes” and “no” answers within the confines you determine do not relate “what Mormons believe”.

So why do you use this line of dialogue? To me the answers’ simple, Mormons must be made to look irrational, silly, and even false. Your benign façade simply isn’t convincing.

Darren on May 18, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Hey Honda, I found your honeybees…

BEES AND THE COLONIZATION OF AMERICA.

Various insects and bees around the world produce honey, but only some european bees combine high honey production with the ability to be subject to manipulation by man.

In America some stingless bees were kept by the native population.
The maya codex Tro-Cortesianus shows drawings of bees and parts of
honey combs. Maya beekeepers worked in Yucatan and adjacent regions
with the specie Mellipona beecheii, using horizontal logs with end enclosures of clay or stone.

With the arrival of spanish colonizers the indians of Yucatan were
obliged to pay tributes which consisted mainly of clothing (mostly blankets) and food, although they also allowed payment in wax and honey.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on May 18, 2012 at 3:59 PM

aren’t you the one who a year or so ago said that if one of the Mormon prophets came to you and asked for your 14 year old daughter (if you had one) hand in marriage you would give her up?
You embrace that part of your faithful legacy, child brides, I find it repulsive and all to “historical”, and never in a positive way.
You place your faith in men, I place my faith in God…

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Funny you should connect the two together. So, right2bright, putting you into the same standard, if God told you to sacrifice your son, would you?

Darren on May 18, 2012 at 4:05 PM

How about that… it’s even in Wikipedia… tell me about how it will never be again?

Native meliponines (Melipona beecheii being the favorite) have been kept by the lowland Maya for thousands of years. The traditional Mayan name for this bee is Xunan kab, literally meaning “royal lady”. The bees were once the subject of religious ceremonies and were a symbol of the bee-god Ah-Muzen-Cab, who is known from the Madrid Codex.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on May 18, 2012 at 4:06 PM

For you to represent it as “Mormon facts” is “intellectually dishonest” to be sure.

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Funny, I asked you to show me where you accused me of using some words and you run around and search for something totally different…focus, now answer me, if you are honest, you accused me of using some words that you felt were inaccurate, now show me where I used the words before digging up some post in the past…which is kinda creepy.

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 4:06 PM

It is not LDS doctrine (or “facts”) that “Jesus was a polygamist”. Statements by a few individuals don’t doctrine make.

For you to represent it as “Mormon facts” is “intellectually dishonest” to be sure.

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 3:31 PM

A few individuals? That is what you always say when I quote your “prophets” so far you have dodged every one of your “prophets” statements.

Jedediah M. Grant, Second Counselor to Brigham Young the Second Prophet of the LDS Church:

“Celsus was a heathen philosopher; and what does he say upon the subject of Christ and his Apostles, and their belief? He says, the ‘grand reason why the Gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ, was because He had so many wives; there were Elizabeth, and Mary, and a host of others that followed Him.’

Statement by Brigham Young, second prophet of the LDS church:

“The Scripture says that He, the Lord, came walking in the Temple, with “HIS TRAIN; I do not know who they were, unless his wives and children;” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13. page 309)

The Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt:

“…it will be seen that the GREAT MESSIAH who was the founder of the Christian religion, WAS A POLYGAMIST, . . .the MESSIAH chose. . .by marrying honorable wives himself, show to all future generations that HE approbated the plurality of wives under the Christian dispensation, as well as under the dispensation in which His polygamist ancestors lived. . . .We have now clearly shown that God the Father had a plurality of wives. . .” (The Seer, page 172)

So once again you demean your prophets…those are not my words, but words of your prophets…LDS owns them, you either own them, or call them out as being false…
You say a “few”, how many prophets do you need, I have more…their words, not mine.

So you are saying Young is dishonest? Again he is dishonest…the second or third time in these posts alone.

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Funny you should connect the two together. So, right2bright, putting you into the same standard, if God told you to sacrifice your son, would you?

Darren on May 18, 2012 at 4:05 PM

God or a “living prophet”…please be clear.
I was talking about a “living prophet” as asking for the sacrifice of my son, I think not…you guys on the other hand, hand over your child daughters, how sweet and loving of you.

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 4:14 PM

So you are saying Young is dishonest? Again he is dishonest…the second or third time in these posts alone.

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Dishonest is too strong a word. Mistaken would be a better word. In the grand scheme of things, it matters not if Christ was married or not. That is an item of trivial importance.

I was talking about a “living prophet” as asking for the sacrifice of my son, I think not…you guys on the other hand, hand over your child daughters, how sweet and loving of you.

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Well, since we aren’t speaking about the Warren Jeff’s version of Mormonism, that particular criticism hasn’t been relevant in over 100 years.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on May 18, 2012 at 4:19 PM

It wouldn’t be the first time a Prophet was mistaken…

God instructs Moses and Aaron to “take the rod … and before their very eyes order the rock to yield its water. … And Moses raised his hand and struck the rock twice with his rod. Out came copious water, and the community and their beasts drank. But the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, ‘Because you did not trust Me enough to affirm My sanctity in the sight of the Israelite people, therefore you shall not lead this congregation into the land that I have given them.’ ” (Numbers 20:8,11,12)

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on May 18, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Prophets are not infallible, right2bright.

Darren on May 18, 2012 at 3:57 PM

They have to be infallible when speaking the word of God, when they are preaching…not in everyday conversation.
Your standard is that they are infallible when you want them to be or they agree with your doctrine, but can be fallible when they state against your doctrine…so there is really no standard.
The quotes I gave were not “conversation”, but actual discourses, written prophecies, statements of facts from a prophet…you just reject them because they don’t “fit”…well you don’t get “two chances” at a call.
Of course you can say anything stated is just “talk” if it doesnt’ fit, it’s the perfect way out of a tough situation.
But maybe a little scripture defining prophets are in order? But then you would just say you interpret them differently and they don’t matter.

“If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him” (Deut. 18:22).

When a PROPHET SPEAKS and his words DO NOT come to pass

“If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him” (Deut. 18:22).

“But the prophet who prophesies peace will be recognized as one truly sent by the Lord only if his prediction comes true” (Jer. 28:9).

The Bible makes it clear that a prophet is someone who speaks on God’s behalf to the people and there is no inaccuracy in his words. When the prophets of old got their message from God, it was perfect, free from any error. They spoke confidently knowing that what they said God would bring to pass.
If one preaches and is in error…they are not a prophet.
Young, Kimball, others were in error, they are not a prophet…it’s biblical…you excuse them, I don’t.
They may be spiritual men, faithful, but not prophets…sorry.

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 4:33 PM

A few individuals? That is what you always say when I quote your “prophets” so far you have dodged every one of your “prophets” statements.

Jedediah M. Grant, Second Counselor to Brigham Young the Second Prophet of the LDS Church:

Celsus was a heathen philosopher; and what does he say upon the subject of Christ and his Apostles, and their belief? He says, the ‘grand reason why the Gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ, was because He had so many wives; there were Elizabeth, and Mary, and a host of others that followed Him.’

More “intellectual dishonesty” by you.

Notice that he is quoting Celsus. And you are representing it as a statement of J.M. Grant.

Statement by Brigham Young, second prophet of the LDS church:

“The Scripture says that He, the Lord, came walking in the Temple, with “HIS TRAIN; I do not know who they were, unless his wives and children;” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13. page 309)

Statements that Brigham Young may or may not have made as recorded in Journal of Discourses do not LDS doctrine make. Also notice that Jesus is not mentioned at all in that statement.

The Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt:

“…it will be seen that the GREAT MESSIAH who was the founder of the Christian religion, WAS A POLYGAMIST, . . .the MESSIAH chose. . .by marrying honorable wives himself, show to all future generations that HE approbated the plurality of wives under the Christian dispensation, as well as under the dispensation in which His polygamist ancestors lived. . . .We have now clearly shown that God the Father had a plurality of wives. . .” (The Seer, page 172)

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Statements of opinion made by O. Pratt do not doctrine make. Especially since the LDS church repudiated “The Seer” long ago.

If you had been “intellectually honest” you would have found this out and acknowledged it.

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Anyone who was alive to know for sure if Christ was married or not has been dead, and their bones have turned to dust.

There is no way to prove he was, nor is there way to prove he was not.

If anyone runs into the Ancient Apostle who was promised to tarry on the Earth until Christ’s return, please ask him for an authoritative answer. Until that point, there is no answer that is going to accepted by both sides.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on May 18, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4