About Joseph Smith (The OTHER World Series -

A politician Mormon raises questions about his ability to discern truth.

Your logic is very difficult to follow in that poll as it isn't polling simply Evangelical Christians, it is polling GOP voters.

Just about every poll has overarching poll stats -- and then they break that down by demographic groups. This one had overarching #s for GOP primary voters; and then mentioned white Evangelicals. What's so difficult to follow about that?

...you are very fanatical in your beliefs, that is fine...I'm a sports fan...

And many sports fans are FANatical in their convictions, too, right? And that's "fine," too without any insinuations otherwise, right?

(Or is it that in sports that's "fine" by a greater degree than faith matters?)

Quite frankly I fear radical Islam a heck of a lot more than Mormons. I don't recall Mormons calling for the death of all infidels.

"We will establish our religion by the sword. We will trample down our enemies and make it one gore of blood from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean. I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Quran or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us – Joseph Smith or the Sword" –History of the Church, Vol. 3, p. 167.

Actually, the Mormons have a terrible history of violence both within and without their faith. For example, the historian Hubert Bancroft lists four incidents where the national guard and U.S. Army were involved in armed conflict with the Saints (e.g. the Missouri Mormon War, the Illinois Mormon Wars and the Utah Mormon War of 1857) and six Mormon civil wars. Additionally, there were eight named Indian wars, the Bear River Massacre (the worst in U.S. history), the Mountain Meadows Massacre, the worst serial murderer in U.S. history (Porter Rockwell) with a body count of at least 150, and God only knows how many hundreds (or thousands) more murdered through the doctrine of Blood Atonement ... all of this directly attributable to the Saints.

Re. Mormonism is not really a valid election issue

I maintain Mitt's Mormon beliefs are a critical election issue and I raise following arguments in support of this position:

It is not right to say doctrine doesn't matter at all. Take Islam, for instance. It would be dangerously naive to assume, as American civil religion does, that all religions are pretty much the same. It's true that most religions share core ethical teachings, but orthodox Islam also teaches unambiguously that there is to be no separation of religion and state, that non-Muslims are to live subservient under law to Muslims, and in some sects that Allah commands a jihad or "holy war" be waged against non-Muslim "infidels". To the extent that a Muslim wishes to preside over our pluralist liberal democracy, he will have had to break radically from his faith's fundamentals.

Liberals who insist that religion has no place at all in American politics have to account for the Christian roots of many social reforms. Consider for example the abolitionism and the civil rights movement. When faced with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and other black clergymen explicitly appealing to Christian scripture against Jim Crow, Southern segregationists groused that religion had no business in politics. You can't praise religion's role in political discourse only when it advances causes of which you approve or is practiced by constituencies blacks, say, that vote Democratic.

If God doesn't exist, then by what standard do we decide right from wrong? If a society recognizes no independent, transcendent guardian of the moral order, will it not, over time, lose its self-discipline and decline into barbarism? The eminent sociologist Philip Rieff, who was not a believer, said that man would either live in fear of God or would be condemned to live in fear of the evil in himself.

Mitt, himself, has placed his Mormon faith under scrutiny. In his famous speech on Mormonism, Mitt said that a person should not be rejected . . . because of his faith. His supporters say it is akin to rejecting a Barack Obama because he is black. But Obama was born black; Romney is a Mormon because he accepts the beliefs of the Mormon faith. This permits us, therefore, to make inferences about his judgment and character, good or bad.

Mitt has promised to fully obey Mormon teachings without hesitation and without question.

In his February 26, 1980 speech at BYU titled Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet, LDS President Ezra Taft Benson maintained the Mormon Church President spoke with inerrant authority on "any matter, temporal or spiritual " and was "not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time."
As a Temple Mormon, Mormon Bishop and Stake President, Mitt has sworn among other things, he recognizes the President of the LDS Church as a "prophet, seer and revelator," and will "obey the rules, laws, and commandments of the gospel" as proclaimed by Mormon Prophets.
Mitt made these solemn vows with the understanding they effect "time and all eternity."

Mitt either intended to honor his promises to follow another man's instructions, or he lied. In the case of the former, we are entitled to know where these directives lead, and in the alternative, we should be concerned about Mitt's honesty.

For these reasons, among others, I assert Mitt’s beliefs are indeed a legitimate issue for determining his qualifications for elected public office.

My argument is that recently Free Republic has come under full fledged attack by Mitt Romney hacks claiming we all "hate Mormons". I'm suggesting that your thread is aiding their argument.

If pointing out truth using annotated facts, most of them taken directly from LDS sources, presented in a dispassionate and non-argumentative manner, is indeed hate speech, then I am as guilty as they come.

However, I am not ashamed to recount the truth, and I believe the commonly used liberal tactic of renouncing such arguments as hateful and/or racist is repugnant.

And another big problem is that humans do not become angels. Angels are completely different created beings.

Some of the ``battle`` passages in the book of moroni appear similar to those in the Algonkin and Iroquois oral legends-

Perhaps Smith managed to talk to the Senecas and Onondagas in his region and threw that in. Who knows? Only now the oral history of the Algonkin and Iroquois is slowly being written down.

The hundreds of ``mounds``, Ft. Plain, e.g., in western New York State were there, according to the Iroquois, before their ancestors arrived there.

Many more near Potsdam also same oral tradition. According to Iroquois oral tradition, the Iroquois heard that the white man had landed in New York [New Netherland] 1609 and that they were looking for gold, and killing Indians to get the gold bracelets off their arms. So the Iroquois spread the word to gather up all the gold [nuggets?]and hide it so it would appear that there was no gold and the whites would not kill them to get the gold they were wearing or torture them to find out where the gold was.

This tradition of hiding the gold is from 3 different sources,

1. one is Mohawk late 1940`s fom the St. Regis Reservation I heard from Talkers [Akseswane]

2. the other is earlier Mohawk from the Mohawk Valley, circa 1620 -1645. Dutch accounts refer to it``looking for gold in the Catskills and Hudson Valley Indians wearing gold bracelets``

3. Local oral tradition from 1814 from Mohawks living in the Adirondacks -

[One 2-oz nugget recovered from an Indian cave in 1814 is in a museum here.]

[Joseph Smith found the gold plates in a ``hill` [mound?] near Manchester, NY.]

The Dutch had 3 working gold mines in 1621 in Washington County, NY, rediscovered in 1887 by a businessman-turned-prospector from Glens Falls NY.]

Also they had a working silver mine [with a Dutch fort nearby to protect it, called by the French in 1756 the `ancient fort`-] rediscovered and reworked in 1858 by a local in the Adirondacks, closed and hidden until later rediscovered and secretly worked in 1953 until a landslide covered it up...

And another big problem is that humans do not become angels.

You just ruined my favorite Christmas movie.

1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:

4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.

5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

6 He is not here: for he is arisen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,

2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.

7 And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid.

8 And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only.

9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

10 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?

11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.

12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.

13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

I wondered for a while how Moses did it.

“It’s a Wonderful Life” is, after all, make-believe (and, for what it’s worth, I’ve always loved it, too).

Santa is going to put you on the naughty list.

I don’t know. I hoped you would know.

I thought so.

Moses talked to Peter, James, and John. was he and angel or in some other form. I think he died. So he would not have been like us.

“Thought so” what?

There is no answer coming.