So What If He's A Mormon?

Usually when people like to lie about the Mormons in a public form, they usually add that Mormons have horns. Mormons DO NOT believe "that God the Father was once Adam, that he came down to earth as a man and had sex with Mary, thus creating baby Jesus" you are lying. The other stuff is skewed and misrepresented. Mormons do have doctrinal differences that are difficult for outsiders to believe and accept, please don't add things that are simple not true and skew things they do believe. I you don't like Mormons for what they believe, as least do us the favor to dislike us for what we REALLY believe instead of the made us stuff.

Usually when people like to lie about the Mormons in a public form, they usually add that Mormons have horns. Mormons DO NOT believe "that God the Father was once Adam, that he came down to earth as a man and had sex with Mary, thus creating baby Jesus" you are lying. The other stuff is skewed and misrepresented. Mormons do have doctrinal differences that are difficult for outsiders to believe and accept, please don't add things that are simple not true and skew things they do believe. I you don't like Mormons for what they believe, as least do us the favor to dislike us for what we REALLY believe instead of the made us stuff.

I did say in my blog that I meant no disrespect to Mormons and I hope you read that part too but I stand by my remarks. Not everything Mormons believe is found in The Book of Mormon. Some are found in Doctrines and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price and other writings of Joseph Smith. I do not have time to get into a blog dialogue with you but you are welcome to call my radio show sometime and we can talk on the air. I promise you will be treated with respect. But know this: I do not make comments about religions without first being sure of the facts.

Warmest Regards

Bob Siegel

Mormons do not believe that Adam is God. Mormons do not believe that God had sex with Mary. The Bible and the Book of Mormon, both of which are LDS scriptures, teach that Mary was a virgin. Mormons do not believe that they will become gods of their own planets.

According to your statements, you are of Jewish background. It seems to me that you, of all people, would be more careful about what you say about the beliefs of others. I'm disappointed that you aren't.

I am a lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I have been an active member all my life; I served a two-year mission and have served in responsible positions in the Church. I know what I'm talking about. You clearly don't.

...that you do not make comments about religions without first being sure of the facts. The problem with this is: that is exactly what you HAVE done.

I urge you to read the writings and speaehes of Brigham Young. He
definitely taught that whole Adam being the Father and having sex with Mary thing. I am aware
that some Mormons have renounced this teaching but they have a difficult paradox if they wish to
denounce this teaching and also claim that Brigham Young was a prophet of God since prophets had to
be one hundred percent accurate when claiming to speak under the authority of God.

I've read the speeches and writings of Brigham Young many times. The Journal of Discourses, from which you and other anti-Mormons get their material, is not an official source of doctrine and is of questionable accuracy.

Nobody in the Church believes Adam is God. Nobody. In fact, anyone teaching it puts his membership into question. All Mormons believe that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary (the Bible and Book of Mormon teach this). No authoritative doctrinal source suggests Mormons can become gods of their own planets. None.

You are wrong and misinformed, and it is time to correct your errors.

...believed what you say he believed, which is not entirely clear, the idea of Adam as God and God having sex with Mary has never been adopted as official doctrine. LDS prophets are not infallible or omnscient and can have opinions which are not correct.

This is nothing new. Biblical prophets sometimes made mistakes and said things that turned out not to be true (Jonah and his prophecy about Ninevah being destroyed come to mind).

The only way something can be official doctrine is first, the Prophet, his counselors, and the Twelve Apostles must be in unanimous agreement. Then the idea must be accepted by the Church membership in General Conference as binding. These ideas have never gone through this process. They are not official doctrine and Mormons don't believe them.

If you really want to find out what Latter-day Saints believe, you can do several things:

1. Ask a faithful member of the Church, including missionaries. Clearly you have not done this, or you would not make your claims about what we believe.

2. Visit lds.org or mormon.org. You also have not done this, or if you have, you are intentionally distorting or misrepresenting the information found there.

3. Visit fairlds.org. This is not an official LDS Church web site, but it is designed to help non-Mormons understand the Church and its beliefs. As yet I have found nothing on the site I could disagree with. Any question you could possibly think of is answered here, including all the ones you mentioned in your original post.

If you don't do this, and persist in your errors, then that will tell me a lot about your real intentions.

I stand by my words. Young did claim that he was being inspired by God and did not claim that it was a mere opinion. And I would suggest that you study biblical prophecy better. It was common for prophecies to be conditional upon the repentance of people so Jonah was not making a mistake. But there was nothing conditional or unconditional about a theological teaching. Bottom line: These words exist in Young's Discourses. And I am not anti-Mormon. I am a Christian apologist who studies churches which claim to be the only true church. Mormons teach exactly that and you know it. Does this make Mormons anti Lutheran, Baptist.
, Catholic etc? Think about that before you start calling people Anti- Mormon. I merely point out what the prophets of the church have taught and I said in my original blog that Mormons are nice people. So far my words have been kinder than yours. You are welcome to call my radio show so that we can have an actual discussion about this. I do not have the time to continue this over the internet but I am giving you a chance to back up what you are saying in an actual debate format and if I am as wrong as you claim you would have no better chance to prove it. What do you say?

...about Brigham Young. But you persist in your falsehoods. Mormons do not believe that Adam is God. They do not believe that God had sex with Mary. Mormons do not believe that they will be gods of their own planets.

Neither prophets nor scripture is inerrant. If Brigham Young really believed any of those things, he was wrong. They were never adopted as official doctrine.

You are wrong. If you persist in telling falsehoods after having been corrected (remember, in a comparison between you and me on LDS doctrine, I'm the PhD and you are the second grader), then anti-Mormon is a fitting label.

...at Jonah's account. In chapter 3, Jonah was not happy with the Lord because he spared Ninevah. Clearly Jonah expected the city to be destroyed and it wasn't.

I win.

I am Roman Catholic, do know much, and really do not intend to learn about mormon faith, but have great respect and love for all mormons and Mr. Romney. I feel puzzled, realy, all this focusing on one group of realy very nice people religion, and completely ignoring some of sentors for example are muslim.
This is so silly, we are not a nation of bigots.

I agree with you which is why I said that I would vote for Romney and that I meant no disrespect to Mormons. Still, what the Mormon prophets teach is what the Mormon prophets teach. I never see the harm in having clarity.

Blessings

Bob Siegel

Studying ancient prophecy and the Israeli culture is a far greater project then simply reading the book of Jonah. It is a fact that prophecies could be conditional and Jonah himself told God that he expected him to spare the people He was bothered about it and he was hoping it wouldn't happen but he expected it.. So the narrative tells us the VERY OPPOSITE of what you said.(Jonah 4:1-3)

As for saying things like "I win" or flashing your credentials or accusing me of being anti-Mormon, those kinds of comments really don't advance any real discussion, do they? I could quote my credentials too but I have not mentioned them because they are irrelevant to the facts.

Is it possible to respect people and disagree with them? I think so and I have offered kindness and respect but have received nothing but misplaced arrogance from you.

Will you admit to being ant- Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran, etc. for belonging to a church which claims to be the ONLY TRUE CHURCH I noticed you failed to comment on that even though I brought it up yesterday.

Now then:
I'm only going to say this one more time, so I hope you are paying attention: If you would like to call my radio show I will give you plenty of time to explain your position, attempt to defend it and debate with me. Far more people would witness that conversation than the the numbers who read this blog so here is your chance to "set the record straight." However, I understand if you do not want to do this. In as much as you have admitted that you believe the Bible has mistakes, and in as much as you have admitted that you believe your own Mormon prophets to be flawed even though your church was built on the foundation of their authority, it seems that the debate may just be over. I will give you another chance anyway but these will be my last written words to you. My time is too valuble to get into a non stop written discussion.

Warmest Regards

Bob Siegel

First, I do not believe that calling Bob a "liar" was fair. Bob doesn't strike me as being deliberately deceitful (a "liar") here, even if he does not have his facts right. There's a big difference between deliberately deceiving, and merely being mistaken.

Okay now I have some questions after reading all this.

(1) Does Brigham Young claim to be a prophet of God?

(2) Did he make the statements that Bob brings up while also claiming to be a prophet of God? (In the same writings, for example.)

(3) Did he make other statements while claiming to be a prophet of God that the Mormon church does accept as doctrine?

Thanks.

-Pie

God Bless you, Let's pray for Romney, there is so much unreasonable attacks on him, just worries me. We Christians are better than this. We can disargree without being hateful. I like Romney and Rudy both, I believe they will be the best choice for our country at this time in history. Especially, Rudy understands the nature of Islam and Jihadism. And our standing with Isreal, is very important.
God Bless, and Merry Christmas

Anyone can read photostats of the original Mormon documents at "Where Does It Say That"- http://www.irr.org. Bob's completely accurate about the history, though today's members may not have heard it. Basic is that they currently believe:
1) LDS god is a man who followed their requirements and progressed to be their Heavenly Father
2) who is married to at least one Heavenly Mother
3) who have bodies of flesh and bone
4) who procreate to produce spirit children who need bodies on earth in order to progress to godhood (Lorenzo Snow- "as man is, god was; as god is, man may become")
5)two of those spirit children were Jesus and Lucifer and Jesus was "chosen" to be the savior of this world. The church therefore calls him "the son of God" and claims we are all "god's spirit children."

Wonder why LDS members become angry when one simply states what their leaders have taught and what is believed today. It is not hateful to simply state what is true.

"If Romney gets the nomination, please don’t punish him for being Mormon by putting Hillary into office."

It is for that precise reason that the nomination should be denied him. Many, many voters -- myself, by no means an evangelical, included -- simply cannot cast a ballot for a Mormon.

I earnestly promise you this: nominate him, and my ballot goes elsewhere. And I will not have been the reason the Dhimmicrat carries my state. You will.

Period. End of story.

Actually, Charles, the end of the story goes like this: Although I know you mean well and certainly do not fault your motives, your choice (even if you were correct in thinking that Romney is a bad choice) would be to either vote for the lessor of two evils, or the greater of two evils. If the Conservatives divide or refuse to vote at all, or vote for a third party candidate,it helps Hillary. That is simply a fact. It is a repeat of the Ross Perot Rather Than George Bush Senior disaster that put Bill Clinton into office.

""I earnestly promise you this: nominate him, and my ballot goes elsewhere. And I will not have been the reason the Dhimmicrat carries my state. You will.

Period. End of story.""


It would be wise to suggest that the above warning should not go unheeded by you Romney freaks! Talk about your cult following. Why are you drinkin' this guy's kool-aid??

I am curious how you came to the conclusion that I am a “ Romney freak.” I do not mean to be confrontational but I must ask you in all honesty, did you actually READ my article or are you simply reacting to it.? Never once did I say that Romney was my first choice for a Republican candidate. Neither did I say who my first choice is at all. I simply said: “If Romney gets the nomination please don’t punish him for being Mormon by putting Hillary into office. It’s not worth it.” Just what part of that statement did you fail to understand?

I must be doing something right since I have both Mormons and anti-Mormons angry with me.

To all of you: The provocative response to this article has inspired me to devote most of my radio show to the subject of Mormonism this week. Details and call in number are listed on the bottom of every blog. I invite you all to call in. I promise you’ll be treated with respect. Hopefully you can leave the name calling at home. Such comments do not really advance the discussion, do they?

It's ok Bob, the response from Palmtree is his typical knee-jerk response he shows on just about anything he posts. It's difficult to do, but we've all learned how to ignore him. Best of luck with that too.

As far as your offer to have people call up and talk with you about our beliefs, I know you are being completely sincere in this and I truly believe you don't want to offend anyone, but here's the reality: People who have heart-felt and sacred beliefs about God don't want to share those in a quasi confrontational manner as public radio offers. So, I know you would like to get responses, but don't be surprised when the majority are the rather hate filled ones like Palmtree has so eloquently demonstrated for us all. We see this all too often. When someone's beliefs are maligned and misunderstood, I mean after a while you get sick of it. And yes, afriend was right, a lot of what you have up there is skewed and misrepresented. With that premise in mind, why would someone want to put themselves in that kind of position? Would you want to if you were in their shoes? I think this is in fact why so many people think we are secretive in nature when the reality is far from that. We would love to share with everyone how much the gospel means to us.

If you really want to know about what Mormons believe, and if you are sincere in this, my suggestion would be to pull a Mormon aside as ask them personally. You'll get an honest, frank discussion that'll clear a lot of this up. And from what most people tell us, we try to be nice to our neighbors (which includes Palmtree, but I'm still working on that one).

SharonLarson, you seen like a very kind hearted person so I hope I can respond to your post with as much consideration as you show. You made the comment that Bob's views on Mormons were "skewed and misrepresented". Without explaining *why* you believe this, you appear very unfair to Bob. He has no way of defending himself and the reader has no way to consider whether *you* are wrong.

That seems as unfair as someone making the silly claim that your views on baseball are wrong without giving any details.

Also, I'm not sure that discussion is fully adequate to settle doctrinal matters. It seems to me that if there are no written sources to study what Mormons believe, then things can quickly degenerate into a "he said/she said" argument with no absolute objective basis to stand on. In other words, I'd still encourage Bob to study Mormon *documents* rather than have a chat with some Mormons.

Just my $0.02.

seb

We must be talking about something completely different. What does any of this have to do with baseball? Mind you, I have nothing against the sport but I don't see how it is relevant.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that all things aside, people are going to very hesitant to discuss their beliefs on the air rather than in a one-on-one situation. I don't think Bob has ANY malcontent with Mormons, but it looks like he's run across some common misconceptions or downright false information about the church and about what our doctrine is.

Case in point, the question that Mike Huckabee asked, if you want to call it a question, is a common slur hurled at the church (this has nothing to do with its validity). Meaning, it is not meant to provoke thought or common understanding between believers, but meant to show how me must be way off because "that's not in my Bible", without putting anything in context.

Again, I don't think (and I made this clear in my first post I hope) that Bob has done it maliciously - at all! Unwittingly though he's furthering the kind of stereotyping that is hurtful for someone else's heartfelt beliefs. Nor would I ever consider him an anti-Mormon of any sort.

Also, if you would like, the Church has representatives dedicated to discussing doctrine and beliefs with people in the media. You can reach them here:

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/contact-us

Hope this helps. God bless you all.

seb, I just realized I didn't answer you completely. You mentioned it would be best to go to the written sources when settling doctrinal matters. The problem with that is that most people outside the church (and many inside the church) do not know what constitutes "church doctrine." And as we have had over 177 years now of people inside and outside of the church commenting on everything under the sun, it becomes challenging to wade through everything. Here's a primer that you may find interesting and can guide you through some of this misinformation out there.

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approach ing-mormon-doctrine

I agree though, it is always best to go to the sources (as long as they are reputable sources). My point is just that doing something like this on the air may not get the results he's hoping for and may be counterproductive.

After having read that, and as many people like to look to other sources besides members (buyer beware) to find out about the church, I have found one historian that I find to be refreshingly unbiased (Laurie F. Maffly-Kipp who teaches American religious history at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill). She has some very interesting things to say about Romney that Bob might find extremely insightful to this discussion as well.

The particular section I am referring to is under "Religious authority" but taken as a whole it is an interesting read.

http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=3594

It took me a few minutes but I get your analogy to baseball. I think having it in the title before the explanation was what threw me off. Good analogy, thanks.

No, I would be punishing Romney for being a flip-flopping pretender to social conservatives, and punishing the GOP for taking my vote for granted for too long...

Mormonism isn't the issue -- It's credibility, which Romney and the Establishment GOP are sorely lacking.

I made my comments in the spirit of what jritter stated.
It's not about hate and you know that! Nevertheless, painting your opposition as "hateful" is the convenient "Don't hate me because I'm a Morman" ploy. Playing the coy victim simply doesn't hold any water with me. I won't vote for Romney because he played the Morman victim card too. How old is that? Get a spine before you run for office man!

After reading your post and in light of all your other posts I am left wondering "what negative experience this person must have had with a Mormon" (note spelling please). I know we're not perfect, but whoever may have hurt you, please don't take it personal. Maybe they have moved on already - should you? Of course this is a gross assumption on my part, but just the feeling I get when you post messages. Speaking of the spirit of your posts I would hope you would open your eyes that the only spirit you posses in you mockery of Mormons is one of hate. Hardly an attribute that speaks to your credibility as a Christian - if that is the belief you cherish.

One final thought, you seek to characterize Romney as playing the "victim" card. I'm not exactly sure where you're coming from except for maybe what he said in response to Huckabee's gaffe about one very misunderstood point about Mormonism, and one for which he knew quite well what he was doing. I would recommend you listen entirely to Romney's response. None of which you could characterize as Mitt playing the "victim" card here, if that is what you are referring to. No doubt you have differences in your faith to Mormons, but your characterization of Mitt and his response is way off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjJQBmYBPOA

What other posts are you referring to? My first post on this blog was yesterday. So, you must have me mixed up with another Palm tree, maybe a Washingtonian Palm or a Queen Palm. I'm not a victim of anyone, Mormon or non-Mormon so why do you insist on trying to make me one??

And yes, I would agree that you have made some very gross assumptions. I have no personal agenda to mock Mormans. I happen to think that Romney comes across as a very personable guy. But that alone doesn't qualify him to be Commander and Chief.

Nevertheless, I will admit that the book of Mormon stands in direct opposition to the Christian bible. So if you want to debate the differences between these to volumes, then that is something entirely separate from a discussion about politics!

"two volumes"
not "to volumes"
How about making a edit flag available after posting for awhile?

Were these not your words?:

"It would be wise to suggest that the above warning should not go unheeded by you Romney freaks! Talk about your cult following. Why are you drinkin' this guy's kool-aid??"

When you came on and made the comment to Bob and included words like kool-aid, cult, and "Romney freaks", I don't know what other conclusion one can come to. These are words that are thrown around frequently in anti-Mormon statements. If that wasn't your intention then I apologize for that. I went too far also and got you confused with another blogger who uses the same sort of words and who tauts himself openly as an anti-Mormon, again my apologizes. 'Aint repentance great! :)

I can even agree with what you said about the Book of Mormon with one caveat, when you said: "I will admit that the book of Mormon stands in direct opposition to the Christian bible". And that is - it stands in direct opposition only insofar as your understanding of the Christian bible goes. Of course there are millions and millions out there who share your sentiments, if you all didn't, you'd be Mormon. As far as a debate goes, this is exactly the kind of activity that is frowned upon in the Church and one which like going on live radio many members of the Church simply don't put themselves into. The Church is open to scrutiny and after 177 years we're getting a little used to it. I've provided good sources above if you want to find out about what the church actually teaches and not just what someone who "thinks" they are an expert knows, or someone who "was" an expert knows. I hope you take this the right way and the spirit in which it is given.

Most of us have been taught since early childhood that debate, as you've recommended doing, is the answer to getting to the "bottom of things." We even take classes to hone skills and play Devil's Advocate with positions. However, when it comes to matters of the Spirit, that hostility only breeds contention. And as Mormons are taught, "contention is of the Devil". If however there is a common courtesy given by both parties there can be a deep level of understanding achieved by everyone. Certainly there is more that binds us together as believers than divides us. This is not the appropriate place for that discussion to take place, and again, neither is public radio.

I think I see where you're coming from jritterbush. The GOP's credibility is almost nill right now. With that in mind and when you see Romney being portrayed as a flip-flopper you connect the dots and viola - Mitt is just like the rest of them. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is your main contention with him.

However, if you look at what he has accomplished in Business, in Government, and in the Community (Olympics) you will find a refreshingly different candidate than we are accustomed too. For many people they simply don't know how to categorize him. For himself he would categorize himself in the mold of Reagan, he certainly borrows heavily from Reagan's election play book. Yes, it is calculated, but don't we expect great things from our leaders? When did we get to the point where mediocrity is the new "mold?" In fact the sentiment I get is that some in the GOP hierarchy don't trust him since he doesn't "tow the line" always (think privatized Health Care reform).

Know this, the man doesn't need any more money, he doesn't need power. He's doing this for the benefit of a country that he loves and owes a lot to. Where else in the world do we have the opportunity like in America? My mother was raised in a chicken coop and I am in the top 5% wage earners in America - in one generation. His success bridges two generations as his father grew up in poor conditions, but the point is still valid.

"These are words that are thrown around frequently in anti-Mormon statements. If that wasn't your intention then I apologize for that."

it wasn't my intention to jump on an anti-Morman bandwagon. So, you're apology is easily accepted.


"..the book of Mormon stands in direct opposition to the Christian bible". And that is - it stands in direct opposition only insofar as your understanding of the Christian bible goes"

The assumption and implication of your above statement is that my understanding of the Christian bible is somehow flawed. Will you also be apologizing to me later for that too??

Not flawed, please don't assume that, it is however by our standards "incomplete". Incidentally, it's spelled Mormon, nor Morman.

Are you stating that the book of Mormon completes the understanding of the scriptures in the Christian bible?? Why are you intentionally being elusive? Romney makes many statements without bringing forth anything substantive too. Is being elusive a Mormon trait, and is that what you meant by being trained to debate?

Let's try to dissect this:

"Are you stating that the book of Mormon completes the understanding of the scriptures in the Christian bible??"

The only thing that Mormons accept as a completion of the scriptures is the actual word of God. We do not believe in a closed cannon. That trumps everything. We also don't believe the heavens are closed. That God works the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If you would like to know what we do consider cannon and doctrine as far as scriptures go, please follow this link:

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approach ing-mormon-doctrine

"Why are you intentionally being elusive?"

I'm not being elusive in the least. I've already stated my reservations about getting into a deep doctrinal discussion on a forum like this or on live radio - many times in fact. As far as my intentions go, go back and read my posts again and you will see clearly my intentions - they are only to further an environment of understanding and to let people know where to go if they really want to know what we believe.

"Romney makes many statements without bringing forth anything substantive too."

You have provided nothing to back this up so the only thing I can say is... no he doesn't. Look at what he has accomplished as Governor. If you agree with him, vote for him, if not, don't. That's it. However, not vote for him just because he is Mormon, assuming he gets the nomination, is exactly just what Bob Siegel said, voting for the Democrats. There's no such thing as a non-voter.

"Is being elusive a Mormon trait, and is that what you meant by being trained to debate?"

Maligning an entire religion is exactly what I find deplorable. You say you are not anti-Mormon, but what you have just said calls that into question. Nothing that I have said has demeaned the beliefs of Catholics, Baptists, Jews, Muslims or even Athiests. Certainly we have doctrinal differences, if we didn't we'd all be of the same faith. And if someone takes issue with another religion saying theirs is the true Church of Christ. Well, shouldn't they all? I think I would worry more about a religion that doesn't say that than one that does, although that's just me.

In fact I think when someone looks at someone else and says, "you're not Christian enough for me" that smacks of bigotry and intolerance. Is that the real reason that you won't vote for Romney? Can we all answer that honestly?

Finally, as far as debate goes I've already explained that the Church frowns upon this. When I used that as an example what I was speaking of was being taught debate through classes in our public/private schools, not Sunday school. That is non-existent in our Church and no spiritual good can come of it.

In conclusion, the responses you have given are the exact type of misunderstanding that occurs through debate. My coming on here initially was to express to Bob reservations that Mormons might have calling up, and to point to some good sources for information about our doctrine. With that being accomplished, I wish you all the very best this next year and my God truly bless you all.

Your comments are dripping with; "Woe is me, I'm such a victim because I'm a Mormon". However, I can't decide whether to laugh or weep with pity for you. The closest thing to any substance is this statement; "We do not believe in a closed cannon". Well OK! If you want to believe that, then I have no desire to beat you up for it. This is America and I respect your religious freedom. You can believe whatsoever you desire!

However, you also have stated the word of God is complete. Now, I'm not attacking you, however, I'm simply giving you a substantive response. The word of God is in direct opposition to your belief that "the cannon has NOT been closed". So I can understand WHY the Mormon church forbids you to debate it.
Preventing you from debating the issues will only keep you bound to the churches deceptions. Jesus closed the cannon and cursed anyone whom added to it! Read it for yourself.

Revelation 22:18-21
For I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. He which testifies these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

Hmmm

Deut. 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Does this mean that God closed the canon after Moses' writings, that there were no prophets, that God didn't inspire or direct his affairs on the earth? Does that scripture invalidate the rest of the Old & New Testaments?

I see these two instances as examples of inspired men writing under the inspiration of God warning any who might add to or delete from their particular book. The Bible is a compilation of many 'books.'

Incidentally, there is a Christian/Old Testament scholar from Great Britain, Margaret Barker, who has some interesting commentary on the history of this particular subject. The video from theJos. Smith Symposium held at the Library of Congress in May 2005 is poor in quality, but it is worth reviewing for it's content.

http://lds.org/library/display/0,4945,510-1-3067-1,00.html . She is the 2nd speaker in session 2.

Happy New Year Everyone!

Bob,
I listened to your radio show on the web. I can tell that you are a reasonable person and are not trying to be an anti-Mormon ranter, but you believe you have some understanding of Mormon belief that most Mormon's do not.

It is true that the Adam-God theory (equating Adam with God the Father) is not widely known by most Mormons because it is not taught as doctrine and is not doctrine. Confusing statements were attributed to Brigham Young regarding Adam as God. If we interpret these statements to mean that he was teaching Adam was God the Father, we run up against the problem that this teaching clearly contradicts the majority of his other teachings regarding Adam, the first man in the Garden of Eden, and God the Father. Further, the Adam-God theory is at odds with scripture and every prophet's teaching before or since.

We must conclude that Brigham Young's statements were either errently transcribed or the name Adam was being used as a title as found in 1 Cor. 15:45-47 or he was simply wrong.

end part 1

From http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Relationships.shtml#a dam:

[quote]
This point is further explained by Ari D. Bruening and David L. Paulsen in "The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths," FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 109-169 (quoting from p. 141):


A private letter coauthored by President Wilford Woodruff - fourth president of the church and a contemporary of Brigham Young - and Apostle Joseph F. Smith makes clear that the Adam-God theory was never widely held nor accepted by the church as an official doctrine:

'President Young no doubt expressed his personal opinion or views upon the subject. What he said was not given as revelation or commandment from the Lord. The doctrine was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the Church for approval or ratification, and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the Church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church.'(Wilford Woodruff and Joseph F. Smith, letter to A. Saxey, 7 January 1897, Family and Church History Department Archives, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.)

So whatever Brigham Young actually meant when he spoke of confusing doctrines about Adam, those concepts must be relegated to the "personal opinion" file and not to official doctrine. In the Church, official doctrine comes through established, official routes, and is primarily embodied in standard works that have been presented to the Church and ratified for approval.
[end quote]

Now regarding your reading of the Book of Mormon and praying. I would like to submit that you did not pray about it sincerely, as evidenced by your statement that you asked God to give you a warm feeling if it was false. I suggest that a more neutral approach be taken and that you sincerely ask God if it be true and then ask God if it be false and compare your feelings after both inquiries.

Bryan in AZ

To Cactus-Mormon: I also appreciate your kind tone. Please call my show sometime and we can talk in more detail.I would like to respectully submit a question for you to ponder: Bottom line: Those words of Brigham Young are there in his discourses. If we cannot trut those words or if we want to imply that there was an error in transmission, how can we trust any of Young's words?

To Coco and Palmtree. I looked at your conversation with considerable interest. I invite you to read today's blog as I believe you will each find your positions challenged. The blog is entitled "Was Joseph Smith Really a Prophet of God?

Warmest Regards

Bob Siegel

why does town hall carry this blog?

I've spent the last twenty years defending Evangelicals against what I have always thought to be groundless attacks from the left (intolerance, etc.). . . my arguments have always associated evangelical values with those of the founding fathers, including specifically religious and other forms of tolerance (but for the religous right there would be no constitutional tolerance . . .). the anti-mormon rhetoric that continues at a fevered pitch in this campaign leads me to conclude that I was wrong. Mr. Huckabee's rise in the polls has been the direct result this rhetoric. I am new to this particular blog, but I don't see any tolerance here either. Mr. Siegel, your blog reads like Mr. Huckabee's news conference where he declares "enough is enough" of this negativity, but then launches into a full scale personal assault on Mr. Romney like only the Clintons could do, followed by national TV appearances of the same flavor. What a shame; the success of the Republican Party depends on the Evangelical vote, a significant portion of which is convinced that the mormons are more dangerous than the liberals. What a sad commentary.

Maybe town hall allows this blog because it believes in free speech. For example, they seem to also allow your negative little comments.

To libertyjaw

Did you catch the fact that I was defending Romney and saying I would vote for him if he runs? I was compartmentalizing. Many are concerned about Mormon doctrine. One can disagree with doctrine without being anti-Mormon. Several Mormons have written me and thanked me for my kind tone. What did they notice that you didn't notice? The purpose of the blog: I was challenging those who are concerned about Mormon doctrine that they can remain concerned and yet still associated with Mormons especially politically.

Warmest Regards

Bob Siegel

To Libertyjaw

Indicently, you read every word I wrote and you did not once read me saying that Mormons are more dangerous than liberals. I didn't say Mormons were dangerous at all. Talk about misrepresentation.

You believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

You believe Satan was once an angelic being, one of the sons of God mentioned in Genesis.

We've never used the term "brothers" to describe the relationship between Jesus and Lucifer; you have. We merely believe, as any Christian who reads the Bible and takes it literally, the two facts listed above.

As for the other assorted weirdness, it is akin to saying that Evangelicals believe that there are aliens in Roswell, and that alien-human hybrids exist to bring peace to planet Earth.

A few Evangelicals do believe some of these things. That doesn't give me the right to say that those ideas are Evangelical doctrine, even if I can find a quote or two from Evangelical leaders to that effect.

Think before you mock.

Time no longer allows me to do internet debates but you are welcome to call in my radio show and debate me on this issue at any time. Info on show can me found in my biography) Incidently, you seem to know little if nothing about what I believe. Neither was there any mocking of Mormons. Several Mormons who read these articles event thanked me for my kind tone and did get freaked out, merely because I disagreed with them.

"did NOT get freaked out" I meant to say. Probably because they actually read what I had to say instead of merely reacting emotionally.