Mitt Romney Qualifies With Article 6

Go, Mitt. We love Romney (not Rudy) in NY!

http://nyformitt.blogspot.com/

Why are you reposting articles you've already written? You're making your articles reappear and driving down the articles from other bloggers.

The reason why my articles drive down the articles from other bloggers is due to the fact that I am a good writer. I happen to write interesting and relevant posts that appeal to intelligent readers. Your own comment proves this beyond any shadow of a doubt.

I just visited your blog, and noticed that you have very few visitors. Please don't blame me for a lack of enthusiasm from the general public. Look to yourself for the reasons.

The fact of the matter is that only liberals blame others for their problems, instead of themselves. True conservatives try to discern what it is that they are doing wrong, and want to be accountable for their own actions, rather than think that someone else must be the cause.

I would suggest that you learn to be accountable for your blogging and your blog.

And they should be!

They believe:

1) That Joseph Smith was instructed by God to have sex with the wives of other men.

2) That Joseph Smith was instructed by God to marry teenage girls then have sex with them.

3) That Native Americans are descended from Jews.

4) That God gave Joseph Smith the history of these American "Jews" on gold tablets(then took the tablets back!)

5) That Joseph Smith "translated" these gold tablest without looking at them but by reading magic stones that he kept in his hat.

6) That the writings of Joseph Smith are more correct that the bible

7) That the man who said the following is holy!

"I shall be to this generation a new Muhammad" and adopted as his fighting slogan the words, which he thought he had learned from Islam, "Either the al-Koran or the sword." He was too ignorant to know that if you use the word al you do not need another definite article, but then he did resemble Muhammad in being able only to make a borrowing out of other people's bibles.

Are shameful for using anti mormon sources and refuse to go to sites that give more than a one sided story, to their dostorted views.

At least give it a try.

Posting some pro mormon web site link then scurrying back to your cave doesn't cut it.


Here's what I understand from reading multiple sources to be believed by all mormons:



1) That Joseph Smith was instructed by God to have sex with the wives of other men.

2) That Joseph Smith was instructed by God to marry teenage girls then have sex with them.

3) That Native Americans are descended from Jews.

4) That God gave Joseph Smith the history of these American "Jews" on gold tablets(then took the tablets back!)

5) That Joseph Smith "translated" these gold tablest without looking at them but by reading magic stones that he kept in his hat.

6) That the writings of Joseph Smith are more correct that the bible

7) That the man who said the following is holy!

"I shall be to this generation a new Muhammad" and adopted as his fighting slogan the words, which he thought he had learned from Islam, "Either the al-Koran or the sword." He was too ignorant to know that if you use the word al you do not need another definite article, but then he did resemble Muhammad in being able only to make a borrowing out of other people's bibles.

1) Was Joseph Smith was instructed by God to have sex with the wives of other men.

Possible responses:

a. Joseph Smith did not have sex with the wives of other men


b. Joseph Smith was in fact instructed by God to take the wives of other men and have sex with them


c. Joseph Smith did take the wives of other men and have sex with them, but when he did so he was sinning and not following God's will.


2) Was Joseph Smith instructed by God to marry teenage girls then have sex with them.

Possible responses:

a. Joseph Smith did not marry and have sex with teenage girls.

b. Joseph Smith did marry and have sex with teenage girls, but it was approved by God

c. Joseph Smith did marry and have sex with teenage girls but he was not following God's will.

3) Did Joseph Smith claim that Native Americans are descended from Jews.

a. Yes, this is true.

b. Joseph Smith was wrong about this.

c. Joseph Smith never made this claim.


Which do you believe?

4) Did God give Joseph Smith the history of these American "Jews" on gold tablets(then took the tablets back!)


Possible answers:

a. Joseph Smith never made such a claim

b. The above claim is 100% true.

c. Joseph Smith made the above claim, but he was in error, but not lying.

d. Joseph Smith is a liar.

Which do you believe?

Are shameful for using only pro mormon sources (that never fully answer the tough questions like DNA and NO physical evidence for ANY Book of Mormon civilization) and refuse to go to sites that give more than a one sided story than their bias distorted views.

All badcandie's claims have been refuted repeatedly in countless other blog posts. Joseph Smith was libeled throughout his life and ever since. Separating fact from fiction on all of these issues is nothing short of impossible based on the historical record. In his day although he was frequently accused of crimes there were no successful claims. That didn't stop vigilantes from imposing frontier justice and ultimately killing him. It seems some of those backwards hillbillies are still credible sources for some. Mormons like other Christians do admit that some of the things they believe seem outrageous. The idea that God came to earth is completely outside of the scope of what most people experience. Christians believe that. Do they think the Bible is the irrefutable word of God solely based on tradition? I hope not. Hopefully they know the truthfulness of Christianity based on deep personal prayer and responses to their prayer from the spirit. That is the same source that can allow people to find out for themselves that Joseph Smith did was a prophet of God.

Right back at you.

Claim: "Prisoners are routinely freed from crimes they supposedly committed many years before when scientific experts prove conclusively that the DNA found on the victim did not match the DNA of the convict."

Dr. John M. Butler, PhD. Dr. Butler is an internationally-renowned expert in the use of DNA for forensic work, and a member of the FBI’s Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDAM). (See Dr. Butler's vita here.) He is also an LDS bishop.

He literally "wrote the textbook" used to train law enforcement personnel on DNA:

Butler, J.M. (2001) Forensic DNA Typing: Biology and Technology behind STR Markers. Academic Press, London, 335 pages
Butler, J.M. (2005) Forensic DNA Typing: Biology, Technology, and Genetics of STR Markers (2nd Edition). Elsevier Academic Press, New York, 688 pages.

Dr. Butler, along with many other specialists and scientists, utterly rejects the implied claim that 'DNA works for crime scenes, so it should work for the Book of Mormon.' And, he should know better than anyone—especially those who promote the superficial treatment of DNA science relative to the Book of Mormon, as is done in the video.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:DNA

Claim:"If it could be proven absolutely that the American Indians were not descendants of the Lamanites then Joseph Smith perpetrated a gigantic fraud.... Such irrefutable evidence has been found using one of our strongest technological discoveries—DNA."

This wildly irresponsible claim fails on numerous grounds:

What are we looking for? Lehi and his family are clearly not Jews, but descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh. What does this DNA look like? What are we comparing to?

What does Jewish DNA look like? Despite the critics' claims, attempts to use genetic testing to trace known groups (such as Jews) through history have been problematical.

What studies were done? The video does not want the viewer to know that they base their arguments on DNA data that has never been shown to be even relevant to the issue of Book of Mormon genetics, let alone conclusive. Such critics have cobbled together DNA data gathered from unrelated studies to produce arguments with the appearance of scientific weight but having no real significance. No genetic studies have been designed and performed to test the hypothesis that Native Americans were of Lehite descent and that this inheritance is detectable today.

Claim: "When the Y-chromosomes or mitochondrial DNA are tested in hundreds of even thousands of individuals from two different races the results can be compared to see how similar or dissimilar these intact DNA markers are between people groups."

Once again, the science is distorted almost beyond recognition when this is applied to the Book of Mormon

Y-chromosomes

Despite claims that Y-chromosome data do not support Book of Mormon claims, there are some markers which should be considered in another light:

Douglas Forbes points out that Y-chromosome SNP biallelic marker Q-P36 (also known by the mutation marker M-242), postulated by geneticist Doron Behar and colleagues to be a founding lineage among Ashkenazi Jewish populations, is also found in Iranian and Iraqi Jews and is a founding lineage group present in 31 percent of self-identified Native Americans in the U.S.

—See "Y-Chromosome Data," in David G. Stewart, Jr., "DNA and the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 109–138. off-site PDF link wiki FAIR link

The DVD is either not up to date on the science, or those associated with the DVD are bearing false witness.

Mitochondrial DNA

Mitochondrial DNA is passed only from mothers to their children. It has been used in attacks on the Book of Mormon, and yet even known Jewish populations do not share mtDNA. That is, some groups that are both known to be Jewish do not share any mitochondrial DNA. So, how can this count against an Ephraim or Manasseh origin for some Amerindians?

Claim: "The DNA issue of whether Native Americans come from a Hebrew descent is not an issue. Once you get outside of Mormonism it is not an issue, it is not a debate. Nobody is debating out in the scientific realm of whether or not Native Americans came from Israelites. Nobody. Or Middle-Easterners. Nobody." - Joel Kramer, Director, Living Hope Ministries


Despite the implication, no informed person in LDS circles is expecting DNA data to be able to prove a Middle Eastern origin for Amerindians either. Latter-day Saint authors do not consider it to be something which could be proved or disproved by current genetic methods.

As Michael F. Whiting, Ph.D (an LDS genetics scientist at BYU) noted:

I...serve as a member of a scientific review panel for the Systematic Biology program of the National Science Foundation. The NSF is a major source of basic research funding available to scientists in the United States, and every six months the NSF brings in a panel of researchers to review grant applications and provide recommendations for funding.... Would a proposal to test the validity of the Book of Mormon by means of DNA sequence information have a sufficiently solid base in science to ever be competitive in receiving funding from a nationally peer-reviewed scientific funding agency such as the NSF?.... Is testing the Book of Mormon by means of genetic information a fundable research project? I do not think so.... It is very unclear what would constitute sufficient evidence to reject the hypothesis that the Lamanite lineages were derived from Middle Eastern lineages, since there are so many assumptions that must be met and so many complications that we are not yet capable of sifting through. [From Whiting's paper below.]
The critics are the only ones claiming that DNA can do things that it can't. Members of the Church do not make the same error.

What does DNA say about conservative Christian beliefs?

A question that is definitely not asked by the video is what DNA can say about the beliefs of conservative Protestant Christians. This is not surprising, because it is not a pretty picture.

Fundamentalist Christian critics are happy to use DNA as a stick to beat the Book of Mormon, but the video does not inform viewers that there is much stronger DNA evidence for concepts which fundamentalist Christian readers might not accept, such as:

evolutionary change in species
human descent from other primates
And, despite being inconsistent with DNA data, fundamentalist critics do not call on their congregations to abandon such literalistic Biblical concepts as:

the earth being only 6,000 years old
a Biblical Adam and Eve were the parents of all humanity only 4,000 years before Christ
a world-wide, Noachian flood which exterminated all life except that which was in the Ark, occurred approximately 5,000 years ago
The critics are often hypocritical—they claim the Saints should abandon the Book of Mormon on flimsy, dubious science, and yet do not tell their audience that they should (by the same logic) abandon religious beliefs of their own that have much more DNA evidence against them.

For example, the producers of this video enlist the assistance of Dr. John Whitcomb, a founder of modern creationism, a staunch advocate of a young earth, and an opponent of evolution. Dr. Whitcomb acts as a commentator on several issues critical of Mormonism throughout the video. Ironically, the very DNA science that this video claims to refute the Book of Mormon would more easily refute many of the beliefs held by Dr. Whitcomb (see here).

Do those who produced the video expect Dr. Whitcomb to abandon the Christian beliefs that DNA science has "disproved"? Why not?

Claim: "Modern scientists have conclusively proven Joseph to be a deceiver in his allegation that the Indians were descendants of the Hebrews."


This claim is utterly false, as demonstrated. The DVD producers are either scientifically incompetent or being dishonest.

Genetics is a complex subject. Applying genetic data to the Book of Mormon also requires a thorough understanding of the Book of Mormon text. The video has not even attempted to provide viewers with the required background in the Book of Mormon or genetics needed to evaluate the genetics arguments for themselves.

Many authors with the needed training—including world-class experts in the use of forensic DNA—have dissected the DNA arguments offered by the critics, and found them lacking. The video's claims are wholly without scientific merit.

Rather, the DVD hopes that readers will simply trust them to be honest and get the science right. But, as we have seen, that trust would be gravely misplaced

It's that simple.

The LIE:

(All badcandie's claims have been refuted repeatedly in countless other blog posts.)




Let's see the proof.

The Kinderhook Plates, which turned out to be forgeries, exposed Joseph Smith once again as a liar and fraud:

“I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook... I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, and that he received his Kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.”
Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 5, p. 372

Claim: "The Kinderhook Plates which were found authentic and partially translated by Joseph Smith were a hoax."

Joseph Smith did not translate the Kinderhook plates. Claims by Nauvoo residents that he did translate them have been shown to be products of the "rumor mill." Even William Clayton's entry in his diary, which the video quotes at length and erroneously attributes to Joseph Smith, conflicts with other news sources.
In the height of disingenuousness, the video references Dr. Stanley Kimball's research on the plates, and even directly quotes the article he wrote about it for the Ensign, but it omits Dr. Kimball's conclusion:
The central issue in the whole question of Joseph Smith's involvement in the Kinderhook plate episode is that the expected "translation" did not appear. And this fact may well explain the characteristic that has made this hoax most interesting — that it was never carried to completion.
* * *
So it is that in the 100-year battle of straw men and straw arguments, Joseph Smith needs no defense — he simply did not fall for the scheme.
—Stanley B. Kimball, "Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to Be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax," Ensign, August 1981, pp. 66–74. off-site)

The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translated the Kinderhook plates is most likely that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show Joseph up, why wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they crow their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.

You are blatant and deceptive in what info you provide. You are leaveing out much info badcandie, you ought to know better, you, like those whom you get your info from dont show the whole story. Grasp the straws, awww, the straws.

You need to check out my site.

Ive answered most of your questions(accusations), you refuse to believe it, it means absolutely nothing to me, you have your opininions, and you are left your opinions, and calling mormons dupes.

The other questions and or accusations that remain, I have posted on my site.

You ignore the truth. Why?

Do you deny that this is a legitimate quote?

The Kinderhook Plates, which turned out to be forgeries, exposed Joseph Smith once again as a liar and fraud:

“I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook... I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, and that he received his Kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.”
Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 5, p. 372

Not that you are bad people, but your religion is based on the fabrications of a lying huxter.

Seek the truth.

Do you know how that statement came about? Do you know that Joseph Smith didnt write it? Do you know that there are conflicting reports about the plates, from mormons that were close to Smith?

Do you ever read all the info from the sites you cut and paste from? Yesterday, in one of your comments, the quote made references to the Kinderhook plates, I pointed it out, and you said it made absolutely no reference to the Kinderhook plates, upon reading it, you saw that it actually not only made reference to the Kinderook plates but stated the words "Kinderhook Plates".

Yesterday you had no clue, now your an expert. Without even reading what you quote, good job.

It only goes to show how insidious you are. You make accusations that you yourself havent even read about. You get info from sites that dont tell the whole story, taking quotes, but not whole quotes nd or the whole story is what pit diggers do.

Once again, you aer left to name calling and kicking against the pricks.

Dupes are those who are fooled.

Mormons have been fooled by Joseph Smith and some corrupt, power hungry leaders who maintain the lies of Joseph Smith.

Every time Smith is exposed as a liar, some Mormon will claim that he never made the damning statement.



Joseph Smith is clearly quoted.

Here is another quote from his secretary:

“I have seen 6 brass plates ... covered with ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates. Prest. J. [Joseph Smith, Jr.] has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendent of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh King of Egypt, and that he received his Kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.”

- William Clayton, Joseph Smith, Jr.’s secretary, William Clayton’s Journal, May 1, 1843, as quoted in Trials of Discipleship – The Story of William Clayton, a Mormon, p. 117

In 1835, a man came to Kirtland, Ohio, with some mummies and Egyptian papyri. Joseph Smith purchased both the mummies and the papyri and made some startling statements about what he had obtained. Josiah Quincy, who visited Joseph Smith at Nauvoo, reported the following:

" 'And now come with me,' said the prophet 'and I will show you the curiosities.'... There were some pine presses fixed against the wall of the room. These receptacles Smith opened, and disclosed four human bodies, shrunken and black with age. 'These are mummies,' said the exhibitor. 'I want you to look at that little runt of a fellow over there. He was a great man in his day. Why, that was Pharaoh Necho, King of Egypt!' Some parchments inscribed with hieroglyphics were then offered us.... 'That is the handwriting of Abraham, the Father of the Faithful,' said the prophet. 'This is the autograph of Moses, and these lines were written by his brother Aaron. Here we have the earliest account of the Creation, from which Moses composed the First Book of Genesis.'... We were further assured that the prophet was the only mortal who could translate these mysterious writings, and that his power was given by direct inspiration.' (Figures of the Past, as cited in Among the Mormons, edited by William Mulder and Russell Mortensen, New York, 1958, pages 136- 137)

Arguments like the one on this thread about the specific beliefs of religions always puzzle me. How is one to choose between the various miraculous stories people believe?

Judaism says, after parting the Red Sea, God gave a man stone tablets on mountaintop to show humanity the way.

Christianity says when that didn't work, God sent a Spirit version of himself to impregnate a sinless virgin with an Incarnate version of Himself, who after performing miracles, died and was resurrected to show humanity the way.

Mormonism says when that didn't work, God sent an angel to lead another man to gold tablets and then give him special rocks to translate them to show humanity the way.

Imagine the scrutiny and issues that would be raised if the parting of the Red Sea, Christ's miracles, or the Resurrection had occurred only a couple of hundred years ago.

So, question: Why should belief in any of these traditions disqualify someone from seeking the Presidency? I've known many Jews, Christians and Mormons in my life, good people of all three faiths. Religion is a matter of faith, not reason , and I would say that only faith, not reason, will enable you to decide between these three stories. A candidate's faith and religion should not matter.

This video is very good and shows Mitt Romney's going back and forth on the abortion issue.

Romney was for it big time, then against it, then for it, then against it.

It is interesting for people to see that he has claimed to change to being pro-life before, only to return to being pro-choice when it would help him out politically.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7y1HMZNJy0

Watch the video please.

Big G writes
"What are we looking for? Lehi and his family are clearly not Jews, but descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh. What does this DNA look like? What are we comparing to? "

Ephraim and Manasseh are both decendants of Eber or "Heber" (from which is derived the word Hebrew) through Joseph, one of Jacobs sons.

Ephraim and Manasseh are sons of Joseph, son of Jacob, son of Isaac son of Abraham(Abram), son of Terah, son of Nahor, son of Serug, son of Reu, son of Peleg, son of Eber(Heber) the progenitor of the Hebrews (Jews).

Conservative? Wordsmith writes
The "no religious test" clause in the Constitution applies to those of all religions or religious denominations, and this, of course, includes Mormons.
perhaps Article 6 of the Constitution will have the power to convince you that you are wrong. If you think that only an evangelical Christian should be the U.S. President, then you are not following the American Constitution.

The contorted logic used in supporting your arguement is like that used by liberals.
A person of any Religious persuasion has the RIGHT to run for office. But any individual has the right to NOT VOTE for them for ANY reason, including their religious views.
You can use any criteria you deem important to vote for whom you choose.

What Article 6 is referring to is THE GOVERNMENT using a religious litmus test to BAR someone from running for office based on their religion. It is a RESTRICTION ON GOVERNMENT, not a standard for the critereia the CITIZEN may use in voting on the WORTHINESS or FITNESS of such a person for the office. You can even base your decision on looks if you like. We don't have thought police (yet) in the US.

I was very skeptical of Romney at first, but his record/leadership is by far the best. We are electing a president, not a preacher. Dwight Eisenhower was elected as a Jehovah's Witness (after his inauguration he converted to be Presbyterian). Was that bad for our country?

Sure the mormons have some strange beliefs but I always refer to the biblical saying, "Beware of false prophets. By their fruits ye shall know them." They have no paid ministry and mormons are on the whole good people......sure they practiced polygamy one time, but so did prophets/people in the bible. Romney gets things done. He has the best education, excellent family values and proven leadership skills.

Chances are over 90% that if you are born into a mormon or baptist family, you will become an adult mormon or baptist--likewise with any religion. So when you get down on someone for being a mormon, baptist, jew, muslim etc., remember that it is probably the "faith of their fathers" and cut them a little slack. Look deeper into their character, lifestyle, humanity and work ethic. Ann Coulter even feels he's the best still in the race....google "the elephant in the room by ann coulter"