On Mitt & Mormonism

Long is right!

But I wanted to beat JC, so now I'll go back and read it.

Well, it's interesting, but I actually don't see a problem. As you pointed out, the Constitution forbids a religious test for the Presidency, but it certainly doesn't prohibit individuals from factoring it into their own personal decision-making process if they want to. So I don't really see a problem or conflict.

If you want to do so, you should feel absolutely free to go ahead.

As to the issue of the nature of Jesus, well... Muslims don't believe in him at all, other than as a prophet, and as you pointed out, there are Muslims in public office. So I don't see a conflict there, either. People simply making their own decisions on what and how an issue influences their vote.

I figured you would see things that way, it just gets old hearing people tell you that if you consider this issue...you are a bigot. That, IMO, is the last refuge of the scoundrel; I will not debate you, try to persuade you, or even oppose you...I will simply label you negatively, call you nasty names, and walk away. But just wait till some of the Mormons at TH get a load of this...I will be called a bigot in no uncertain terms, i'm sure! That's kind of how it goes.

As you say, the first refuge is to label someone as a bigot. That requires no thought or effort. It's an easy solution.

People use all kinds of things to make their decisions. I'm sure it helped Clinton that he's a rogue; that turns some women on. I've read statistics indicating the taller candidate usually wins. There are people who despise Obamarama because he's Black, and Hillary because she's a she. My own daughter, of all people, was saying something about wondering whether women were qualified to be President! Was I shocked! Needless to say, I straightened her right out, using Maggie Thatcher as an example.

I don't know what people expect. "Here's the list of qualifications you're allowed to consider". Puh-leeze!

Once again I'm with you down the line here. Kennedy went through an anal exam(light by today's standards,unless he were to be a lib)about his Catholicism. We have seen one who was supposed to be a devout Christian(Carter),look at what THAT got us. Clinton was rumored to be,but again,look at THAT mess. I personally could care LESS about a candidate's STATED religious leanings,as has been said,we are not electing a Pastor-in-chief. I only want to see whoever leads as the Constitution dictates. That being said,however, anyone with a strong belief system,along with faith, I believe to be a better leader. If I don't get a chance to catch you before may all the joys and blessings of Christmas,and a happy,and prosperous New Year be with you and your family.

I think that every voter has an absolute right to choose the criteria that he/she uses to decide on a candidate. People tend to forget that the Constitution was not meant to restrain the citizen, but the government. The government can't use a religious test...but I can!

And to all of you, have a very happy Christmas season. It seems that this year just started, and now it's coming to an end! It has been another good year for me...as is every moment, day, week, month, or year that I get to see from here on out. Cherish your loved ones, enjoy your time with them, and make sure you let them know you love them!

Peace be upon you all. Be blessed.

Hi Flagwaver,

I did not get through the entire entry, but I just want to clarify, as a lifelong Mormon myself, that you obviously do not know LDS doctrine as it is taught. You are bringing up the same erroneous things that other supposedly Christian churches/paid ministers teach in their Sunday School classes. There is no way you were ever truly Mormon with the ideas you bring up here. Maybe you were too young to have understood or something, but a genuine ex-Mormon might have at least a better grasp on what we actually teach and believe.

I never in my life heard people in our various Sunday meetings teach this whole God-had-sex-with-Mary thing!! I don't care what past LDS leader quotes you take out of context, or this 'certificate of Joseph Smith' thing, etc. If you are going to try to teach others about Mormonism, at least be accurate about it. It ain't as sexy as some want to make it out to be. For a better understanding, go to http://www.lds.org.

That's all.

And seriously, most LDS could wipe the floor with other 'Christians' on their knowledge of the Bible. Today's mainstream Christians believe in the 'god' that was voted on a few hundred years after Christ's death -- resulting in the Nicene creed for example. That sure isn't in the Bible, yet people cling to it as gospel despite what the Bible says.

pointing out that you are grossly misrepresenting my religion is not the same as calling you a bigot. You may well be a super nice person. You are just peddling innacuracies. I should know, because I'm kind of an expert on what my church teaches.

Love ya,

Squiddy

I don't particularly feel like arguing the merits or theology of Mormonsim right now, but if you read my post it is not about what is taught by the church now. But nothing that I have said or written is made up, it is the words of the people that I have attributed them to. The fact of the matter is that he LDS church rises or falls on the claims of Joseph Smith to be a prophet of the living God, and according to the criteria of the Bible then Joseph Smith is not a prophet and the LDS church is not true. Period. A prophet of the living God, to be a true prophet must not be 90% right or 95%, but 100%...and Joseph Smith was not 100% on any of his prophecies.

And I am an ex-Mormon, so don't presume to tell me what I am. I was baptized at the stake building in Greensboro, NC by my eldest brother, I attended the Eden, NC ward until it was decided to merge us with the larger ward in Caswell Co., NC, I was a member in good standing in the congregation in Cherokee, NC util I decided that I no longer believed in the teachings of the church. And aside from leaving behind some very good people who were not allowed to associate with an apostate, I have no regrets.

You may not be right that no one teaches that Jesus is the product of the union of a man-God in the flesh, but the earliest church leaders taught it and their teachings are still true todat, since no new "revelation" has taken its place.

As for Mormons "wiping the floor" with Christians with their knowledge of the Bible, I ask: Which Bible? Is it one of the many translations done by scholars over time such as the KJV, NKJV, TEV, or is it the supposed translation started by Joseph Smith? You know, the one he said in a prophecy that he would finish...yet it mysteriously remains incomplete?

And before you try to dismiss the words of your founding leaders about Joseph Smith having the keys to salvation, or about mankind not being able to be saved without accepting Joseph as a Prophet realize that I didn't say it...they did. I did not take their words out of context, I simply presented them in public. If they did ot say it, give me the proof and I will openly acknowledge my error; but if they did say it, you need to acknowledge that those ideas do not comport with the teachings of Christ in any way, shape, form, or fashion. They in fact seek to replace the risen Christ as Savior with the Prophet Joseph in that role.

But again, I don't want to argue this with you. I have written what I have written, and I will stand by it until someone is able to refute it...and refutation does not simply mean saying you don't think it's true.

And you may be "kind of an expert" on what yur church teaches, but you cannot ignore what it taught in it's beginning because that is the entire foundation of the LDS church. You may want to ignore or marginalize what the founders of the LDS church taught, but if you are intellectually honest you can't do that because those teachings are the very foundations of Mormonism. And if the church is built on a suspect foundation, then the entire structure will be suspect.

That's okay, we probably would butt heads if we argued theology anyway. And I do respect that this is your blog and I am a guest here.

I've never had anyone yet prove to me with the Bible that no prophets can exist after Christ or that Joseph Smith is not a true prophet and saw God. There's no biblical proof that God can no longer communicate through prophets or scripture beyond what we have in the Bible. In fact, the OT and NT are replete with examples of God communicating with prophets, calling them to lead His people, preach the gospel and write scripture.

Your spiritual life is not my business, yet I can see that your comments were very different from those of a seasoned LDS who is familiar with the basic teachings as opposed to info from antagonistic sources.

Obviously, you never really did learn genuine LDS teachings. You may have skipped straight to anti-Mormon teachings. You'd be taken seriously more easily here if you were better versed.

And I know early church leaders have said things that are often taken out of context or misrepresented. So what, I know LDS history, I know there are rumors and truths, I'm well informed here on both sides.

However, your claim that we replace Jesus Christ with Joseph Smith is so preposterous, I don't think I could convince you otherwise even if Christ were to appear to you and personally tell you. That statement alone is enough to show your alleged LDS membership was superficial at best.

Anyway, I respect your right to believe as you wish. I just hope others do not mistakenly look to you as a source of knowledge about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I have never said anywhere that God does not communicate to us today through prophets, and i in fact do believe in prophecy. i am a firm believer that every gift that was given to the 1st century church is at work in the world today because God does not change. However, I also believe that prophecy that comes to us today has to be correct and that it must jibe with the word of God that is already in existence; true prophecy from God will confirm and comport with what God has always said and will not be contradictory. Too many of the prophecies of Joseph Smith either did not come to pass or were in direct conflict with the Bible and the Book of Mormon (like polygamy)that he does not pass the test of a true prophet. As for his seeing God in the flesh, even Doctrines and Covenants says that cannot be true because D&C 84:21-22 says that without the priesthood "no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live" which means that Joseph could not have seen God.

As for the position that Joseph Smith holds in the LDS church, I have not written or said anything that I cannot document or back up...and all of those statements raise Joseph Smith to a position that is the sole province of Jesus alone. I did not make up the statements about Joseph having the keys to eternity, I did not make up the statements about Joseph holding humanities passport to heaven, and I did not make this up either, as they are the exact words of Joseph Smith:
"I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I! The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter Day Saints never ran away from me yet." ( History of the Church, vol.6, pp 408-409)

Take these words as well, and tell me that Joseph Smith himself of where he stands:
"The whole earth shall bear witness that I, like the towering rock in the midst of the ocean, which has withstood the mighty surges of the warring waves for centuries, am impregnable...I combat the errors of ages; I meet the violebce of mobs; I cope with illegal proceedings from executive authority: I cut the gordian knot of powers, and I solve mathematical problems of universities, with truth---diamond truth; and God is my right hand man."(History of the Church, vol. 6, pp 78)

As for using "antagonistic" sources, I have found that using them will get me closer to the truth than listening to the official party line of the LDS Church. The Church is not going to even acknowledge everything in its history to you as a member, so why should I take the words of thr Bretheren as gospel? When the Church opens its archives so that people can see for themselves what the true history of the Church and its teachings are,then I may be willing to believe the stories they tell. Until then, I will remain a confirmed skeptic.

You have every right to believe as you wish, and I will respect your right to believe it; however I will not pretend to agree with or support the non biblical teachings of the LDS church.We just have to agree to disagree.

FLAGWAVER SAID: "Too many of the prophecies of Joseph Smith either did not come to pass or were in direct conflict with the Bible and the Book of Mormon (like polygamy)that he does not pass the test of a true prophet. As for his seeing God in the flesh, even Doctrines and Covenants says that cannot be true because D&C 84:21-22 says that without the priesthood "no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live" which means that Joseph could not have seen God."

1. You didn't know about the polygamy practiced by Abraham or other Bible prophets?

2. RE: seeing God. You bring up a valid question here. As the verses say exactly:

"21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;
"22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live."

Joseph Smith described his seeing of God and Christ as a "vision", so this could indicate God was not displaying himself in his full glory. Joseph Smith did not touch him or anything, as though he were there in the 'flesh.' God can appear in spirit or whatever degree of glory or form he likes. It also does not say in these verses WHO needs to use the authority of the priesthood. God, using his godly powers (priesthood) can show himself in any form he likes.

Earthly humans saw Christ face to face, but he was in mortal form. That is an example of seeing God without having priesthood authority. I take these verses to mean that in his full glory, seeing God as he really is, nothing hidden, is so powerful that as mortals we cannot live through such a sight or presence.

Yeah, Joseph was a prophet, but not a perfect man. No Bible prophet was ever perfect, only Christ was perfect. So although he said some swelling, boastful things, he was right in that God called him to a very big role, that of being the prophet to begin the preparations for Christ's second coming. The church he started is still well and thriving, despite Smith being murdered, despite all kinds of things that could have caused its demise more than a century ago.

If you read all of Joseph Smith's writings or even the D&C or Book of Mormon, you'll see an abundance of references to Christ as the only way to salvation, as the creator of this world, our Savior, etc. etc. (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=christ&do=Search)

You can pick out some old quote by J.S. to say we think he is God, but it does not hold up against all the rest of Smith's or LDS teachings. Even the Bible has not nearly the references to Jesus Christ and his role as our one and only Savior as the B of M. So you'd have to ignore 90% of the evidence to think we put Joseph Smith above or in place of Christ.

So yes, Joseph Smith has done more than any other HUMAN in being an instrument of God and giving us countless revelations and priesthood ordinances, etc. Through him, we learned a whole lot of truths that had been lost. But no, we never teach that he is even close to being like Jesus Christ himself. A great and important prophet, yes. But not God himself.

I appreciate being able to debate a bit on the matter and that we can agree to disagree. I cannot force you to believe as I do, nor should I. Hey, at least you're a conservative and not endangering our country with socialism!

I actually agree about how the church should be more open with all the historical documents. If there's nothing to hide, why do this? They want to protect the image of the church, I'm sure, and I do wish President Hinckley would be more bold sometimes instead of saying we're just like other Christians.

I go according to the faith and spiritual experiences I've had. I see the human imperfections in church leaders, yet I still see that they are called by God to lead this church and give us wise counsel.

Anyway... let's hope we don't have a Pres. Oblahma or Hitlery!

Squiddy, I have a few more points to make and then we can move on. The debate will rage on, but at least it can be civil...and here it will be.

First, I know that polygamy was practiced by Abraham and others, as it was a cultural norm then for men to have a wife and several concubines. But even then, the concubines were not wives, they were concubines. They may have borne children for their "partners", but they never were going to replace the wife in the home. Look at what happened when Hagar attempted to usurp Sarah, and what happened when she thought that Ishmael was to be Abraham' heir. She and her son were cast out into the desert; they were later rescued and brought back and Ishmael was given an inheritance, but he was never given the birthright of Israel.

But that is neither here nor there, as it applies to whether or not Joseph Smith was a true prophet or not. As for polygamy in the LDS church, why is it that this doctrine that was so important as to be called one of the keys to exaltation is no longer practiced? President Wilford Woodruff said, "If we were to do away with polygamy...then we must do away with prophets and apostles, with revelation and the gifts and graces of the Gospel, and finally give up our religion altogether..."; yet HE signed the 1890 Manifesto to prohibit the church from practicing polygamy?

I full well understand that no one that was called as prophet was ever pefect...heck, Jonah got swallowed by the fish trying to get away from going to Nineveh! But no prophet ever called by God ever uttered a false prophecy and they never uttered a prophecy that contradicted the Word of God. Joseph smith had so many false prophecies that you could fill a small book with them, yet Mormons continue to hold him out as true prophet; how can this be when he spoke things in the name of the Lord that were patently false? His prophecies about there being a civil war that would be poured out on all nations, his prophecies about the building of the temple in Missouri that has yet to be built...even though he said he would SEE it built, and his prophecy that God would wipe the wicked from the earth have not been fulfilled...which by definition makes him a false prophet.

And what prophet of God ever gave himself to such pride? Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah...did any of them ever boast of THEIR accomplishments? Did any of them ever use their place as a prophet of God to advance their own interests or to fulfill their own desires as Joseph Smith did? Shoot, Joseph Smith's entire First Vision stands in direct cintradiction of Jesus's own words that His church would not be lost nor destroyed; yet Smith's "God" claimed that all churches were an abomination? How could this be? Either Jesus Himself lied when He said the gates of hell would not prevail against His church, or Joseph Smith lied when his "God" told him the exact opposite!

We are not going to agree here, and that's fine. I would never try to force you to believe as I do, because we all have an absolute right to believe as we so choose. While I resoect your right to believe what ever you want, that does not mean that I agree with what your church stands for and teaches.

I would just like to encourage you to take an open minded look at the history of the LDS church, to examine the doctrinal shifts and changes the church has gone through, and to really examine what the church teaches in comparison to what the Bible and the Book of Mormon teaches. Keeping an open mind and taking an honest look at those things may just give you more to think about than any words that I speak or write.