They Shoot Mormons, Don't They? Religious Bigotry, alive and well today

“I wouldn’t vote for a Mormon for dogcatcher, much less President of the United States!” There’s a lot of that kind of hateful rhetoric going around since Mitt Romney decided to throw his hat in the ring – as if Mormons are some kind of hideous evil monsters. The loudest anti-Mormon shouts, sad to say, are coming from America’s so-called “Christian right”. How can Mitt Romney hope to get a fair shake in this spiritually polluted atmosphere?

There was another man running for President who faced the same dilemma – John F. Kennedy – only he was the target of anti-CATHOLIC bigotry. In his 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, JFK said the following: “. . .I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end - where all men and all churches are treated as equal - where man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice - where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind - and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their words in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.” John F. Kennedy Library & Museum (Speeches, 1960). By the way, if you listen to the audio version of JFK’s speech, you will hear the hurt and frustration in his voice and the unfair treatment surely must have caused many a sleepless night.

Fast forward to 2007 where JFK might as well have been “whistlin’ Dixie”. The hostility toward Mormons today, in my opinion, is even worse than that suffered by JFK. Although it is said that JFK lost about a million votes to religious intolerance, Romney stands to lose even more if the anti-Mormon evangelicals hang together.

According to Media Matters for America - “. . . a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media” - FOX News is not reporting accurately on the level of evangelical hostility to the Romney run. Media Matters for America points out that among evangelical leaders rejecting Mormons: Shirley and James Dobson (National Day of Prayer and Focus on the Family, respectively), the Southern Baptist Convention (collectively), Pat Robertson (Christian Broadcasting Network), and Dr. D. James Kennedy (Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Florida). “Among many conservative evangelicals – who comprise a significant part of the Republican base – Mormonism is considered an un-Christian cult.” Media Matters for America (2007)

While stumping in Florida, a man in the audience stood up during the Q&A portion and said the following to Romney: “You, sir, you’re a pretender. You do not know the Lord. You’re a Mormon.” Media Matters for America (2007). This is the kind of un-American, disrespectful treatment Mitt Romney will apparently have to endure throughout the entire campaign – as if just being a Mormon is reason enough to open the floodgates for free flow of pent-up hatred and vindictiveness.

For the record, the Mormon bashers know full well that the official name of Romney’s church is “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” and the members should rightfully be called “members of the LDS Church” but the words “Mormon” and “Mormonism” have an aura of negativity so they prefer to use the “M” word as if it were dirty.

Less than five minutes cruising around the official LDS website (LDS.org) will show anyone who’s interested that the Church is a Christian organization, with Jesus Christ at the Head. There are no paid clergy – all are volunteers. Humanitarian aid is legendary. Members of the LDS Church believe in strong family values; they are patriotic, they are law-abiding upstanding citizens of their community. Many LDS young men right out of high school go on two-year missions – you know, the guys on bikes – and during their mission they don’t date, read newspapers, go to movies or watch TV; but rather they dedicate two years of their lives to serving others. Many women go on missions as well, and couples, only theirs is 18 months in length but the obligations are basically the same. Most members do not shop or go out to eat on Sundays – reminiscent of the good old days when shops and stores were closed in obedience to the Commandment, “Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy”. If they can help it, LDS Church members do not work on Sundays, either, preferring to spend the day at church and with their families. Church members are encouraged to store up a year’s supply of food and water so they will be able to care for their families in the event of an emergency. The LDS Church believes in self-sufficiency and self-reliance but in the event of a financial hardship the Church distributes food and supplies through their welfare (Bishop’s Storehouse) program. Members of the LDS Church do not drink alcohol nor do they use illicit drugs; they do not drink coffee and tea. A Mormon in good standing, therefore, will not be found in a drunken stupor puking her guts out at 3 a.m. anywhere in the world. Furthermore, members of the church are encouraged to dress modestly, be polite and courteous. And members of the LDS Church are faithful tithe payers. Come on, people, what’s not to love?

So what on earth is their beef, the anti-Mormon zealots? Why is there such disdain for the LDS Church and its members? In Hugh Hewitt’s book, “Mormon in the White House?” he states his thesis that the fierce anti-Mormon sentiment among main-stream Christians stems from one or two or all three of the following factors (in order of importance):

3) “If there is a Mormon in the White House, Salt Lake City will call the shots, at least on the biggest issues.” Hewitt (2007, p. 221-227)

Hugh Hewitt has written an exquisite book about the Romney campaign and overcoming the “Mormon problem.” It’s a good read and I highly recommend it. Of the three problem points listed in the previous paragraph, Hewitt believes – unless some unforeseen blunder destroys his chances – none of the three is insurmountable for Mitt Romney. (Plus, he has the best hair.)

Well, I’m no Hugh Hewitt, not even close; he’s an icon on the conservative radio talk show circuit. Hewitt could talk circles around me (I’ve seen him in action in Sacramento); he’s brilliant; he’s well educated, well read, no doubt a genius, plus he’s kind of cute. I’m basically a “nobody” – an overweight grandma – but after having researched for this paper, I have come to a totally different conclusion as to why there is such in-your-face angst over Romney’s religion of choice: It’s all about money, power and control (in that order). I think they’re (the evangelical religious bigots, that is) scared half to death and are revving up their attacks, not to save souls, but to save their reputations (which if tarnished would lead to financial ruin).

As I said, all one must do is browse around the LDS official web site to see what the LDS Church believes and stands for. Any reasonable person would conclude that Mormons are not evil monsters at all. In fact, they are God fearing, Christ believing, Holy Ghost following people going about doing good. “You will know them by their fruit” and the LDS has plenty of fruit and they are willing to share.

Earlier, I stated that some high-powered ministries have publicly condemned Mormons: Shirley and James Dobson, the Southern Baptist Convention, Pat Robertson, and Dr. D. James Kennedy – just to name a few. There are hoards of others. Sunday after Sunday, preachers, evangelists, reverends and ministers from all Christian denominations pound the pulpit with anti-Mormon rhetoric. I heard the message loud clear when I was a Baptist and when I tiptoed through evangelical/Pentecostal territories. Was I ever miffed when I later learned for myself the Gospel truth about the LDS Church.

Just think about it, please. If Dr. D. James Kennedy, for example, who wrote the book, The Wolves Among Us, were to admit he’d been wrong in labeling the LDS Church a “cult” that leads unwary ignorant people astray (to hell), what would become of his multi-million-dollar ministry? Suffice it to say, there’s big money to be had by sale of books, tapes, CD’s, videos, and other anti-Mormon propaganda, not to mention speaking engagements and world-wide religious crusades. We’re talking trillions, all told. I realize the anti-Mormon aspect of these ministries is but a small portion of the business, but if the truth came out, that they had been using falsehoods about the LDS Church as a cash cow, their entire empires could tumble.

The ABC News program 20/20 aired on March 23, 2007, exposed the lavish lifestyles of some of the top evangelical preachers – million dollar mansions and personal jets. ABC News - 20/20 (2007) (Again, the LDS Church has no paid clergy.)

It’s nothing new. Severe harassment and persecution has been the lot of the LDS Church since it’s inception in 1820 when a 14-year-old boy named Joseph Smith saw visions and communed with heavenly beings. Rather than discuss the spiritual aspects of the LDS Church, however, let’s stick to facts of history. Taken from a college-level early American history textbook, Joseph Smith, upon experiencing the visions and visitations, believed “that God had work for me to do, and that my name should be for good and evil among all nations, kindreds and tongues.” Ayers, Gould, Oshinsky, and Soderlund (2004, p. 292). The textbook continues, “They were met with hostility virtually everywhere they went . . . . As the movement gathered momentum, hundreds of people joined the church; entire congregations of churches of other faiths joined . . .” Ayers, Gould, Oshinsky, and Soderlund (2004, p. 293)

During the dark time of American history when slavery was flourishing and when Native Americans were forced from their lands, the pioneers of the LDS Church also suffered at the hands of unscrupulous politicians, governmental leaders, and angry hate-filled mobs. “In the face of relentless persecution, Joseph Smith, the founder of the church, had led his flock to Illinois. There they had established the town of Nauvoo, which by the mid-1840’s had become the largest city in Illinois with over 15,000 people. . . In June 1844, a mob of non-Mormons broke into the jail where Smith was being held and killed both him and his brother. . .The Mormons abandoned Nauvoo in the spring of 1846 as anti-Mormons pounded the town with cannon, destroying the Great Temple. In a well-coordinated migration, 15,000 Mormons moved in stages to the Great Salt Lake.” Ayers, Gould, Oshinsky, and Soderlund (2004, p. 334-335) Many walked all the way and many died along the way, including innocent babes.

Joseph Smith at one time was tarred and feathered by a mob. No jury, no trial, no judge – and they had planned to castrate him, too. On October 27, 1838, the then governor of Missouri issued an “extermination order”: “The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary . . .” Far West History (n.d.) Please note that the order called for exterminating “Mormons” making no distinction between men, women and children, and indeed women and children were subject to the extermination order.

In an event known in LDS history as “the Haun’s Mill Massacre”, precipitated by the extermination order, 30 to 40 LDS families were surprised by some 200 to 250 militia. After the smoke cleared, seventeen LDS people lay dead including a ten-year-old boy. Thirteen LDS members were wounded including a woman and a seven-year-old boy. “A few Missourians returned the next day and took plunder.” LDS FAQ (n.d.) No Missouri militiamen were killed but three were wounded. Just a few years earlier, the LDS folk who died that day had been members of other churches - Congregational or Methodist or Baptist or Presbyterian.

In l976, Governor Bond of Missouri officially rescinded the extermination order and presented apologies for the “unfortunate developments” it caused. Quoting from Governor Bond’s Executive Order: “WHEREAS, Governor Boggs’ order clearly contravened the rights to life, liberty, property and religious freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, as well as the Constitution of the State of Missouri; and . . . Expressing on behalf of all Missourians our deep regret for the injustice and undue suffering rescind Executive Order Number 44 dated October 27, 1838, issued by Governor W. Boggs. . .” Far West History (n.d.) The individuals who harassed, abused, and even murdered Mormons in cold blood were never tried for their crimes.

I read Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Letter from Birmingham Jail and it really touched my heart. There he was, suffering for the Lord in jail, and these religious leaders with highfalutin titles on the outside wrote an open letter (“A Call for Unity”) in which they criticize King’s tactics and basically blame King for the racial turmoil of the time. Though you can tell King is upset and hurt by the attack – made worse because he’s stuck in jail and can’t confront the religious leaders face-to-face – his response is gentle genius. “I wish you had commended the Negro sit-inners and demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer, and their amazing discipline in the midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes.” Barnet and Bedau (2005, p. 881)

King has a few choice words for the Church, too: “If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.” Barnet and Bedau (2005, p. 880)

There’s an eerie commonality between what JFK and MLK endured at the hands of the religious bigots of their day and what Mitt Romney is facing today. I hope and pray that Romney will be able to fend off these undeserved attacks from the religious hypocrites with the same grace, dignity and God-inspired resolve displayed by the other two.

A few popular bumper stickers read: “Honk if you love Jesus” and “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven” or “Jesus is my co-pilot”. Yet, apparently, these same bumper-sticker Christians are the ones waging war against Mitt Romney’s run for the Presidency solely on the basis of his chosen faith in a Church that bears the name of the Savior of the world.

ABC News - 20/20 (2007). Philanthropic donations come from your heart, but where do they end up? Ex-money manager says "enough!" to secretive Christian Ministry spending. Glenn Ruppel & John Stossel. United States: ABC News.

Ayers, E. L., Gould, L. L., Oshinsky, D. M., & Soderlund, J. R. (2004). American Passages - a history of the United States - Volume I: to 1877 (2nd ed.). Belmont, California: Thomson/Wadsworth.

Barnet, S., & Bedau, H. (2005). Letter from Birmingham Jail. Current Issues and Enduring Questions - a guide to critical thinking and argument, with readings (7th ed., pp. 867-882). Boston and New York: Bedford/St. Martin's.

Far West History. (n.d.). The Extermination Order and how it was rescinded. Retrieved April 28, 2007, from http://www.jwha.info/mmff/exorder.htm

Hewitt, H. (2007). A Mormon in the White House? 10 things every American should know about Mitt Romney. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc.

John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum. (1960, September 12). Address of Senator John F. Kennedy to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. Retrieved April 22, 2007, from http://www.jfklibrary.org

Lds Faq. (n.d.). What was the Haun's Mill Massacre? Retrieved April 28-2007, 2004, from Brigham Young University Web Site: http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/view.asp?q=57

Media Matters for America. (2007). Fox News whitewashes evangelical hostility to Romney's faith. Retrieved April 22, 2007, from http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200702280002

I love how critics of Joseph Smith slam him on crystal gazing but fail to ignore why when brought him to court they failed to convicted him.

Have you looked at the evidentiary discussion at the pre-trial hearing on Joseph Smith? The prosecutor wanted to prove that Smith couldn’t see anything with his seer stone, so he took a book, opened it randomly, covered it with a blanket and placed it 25 feet away from him. Asked Smith to read the two pages word for word. Joseph Smith proceeded to read the two pages word for word. When the Judge picked up the book and saw what Smith had done, he dismissed the pre-trial immediately and let Smith go.

How come the critics never try to look at the details of his claims but continue with same ole same ole?

And they picked some very effective gimmicks -- sex, money and power -- you get the sex right now, soon as you sign up, all the women you want -- you get the money as you go, as your faithfulness and obedience gets established -- and you get the power at the end, when you are rewarded for a lifetime of unquestioning obedience and faithfulness, doing, thinking and saying exactly what church leadership tells you and nothing else.

You've hit this on the head--with part of the "power" formula being eternal power promised by the "prophet" himself. For some reason, LDS put D&C 137 up to vote to be "sustained" as "Scripture" (why couldn't the 1976 LDS "prophet" just call it such?). What is telling is what is not included.

Look for example at History of the Church, 2:187. We see there Smith's original apostles. Smith claimed to envision all 12 of these original apostles in celestial kingdom--the highest kingdom.

The "excluded portions" of D&C 137 shows that Smith was already unhappy w/his apostles and in fact, rebuked them: "...fatigued...tattered...eyes cast downward...the Saviour looked upon them and wept." Despite this, Smith was trying to get them to get their act together and decided to lure them with the promise of eternal prowess:

"I finally saw the Twelve in the celestial kingdom of God."

What happened to these dozen: 7 were soon ex-communicated or apostatized from the LDS Church (Luke S. Johnson + John F. Boynton, 1837; Orson Hyde, Thomas B. Marsh, Lyman Johnson, Wm E. McClellin, all in 1838; and William Smith, 1845. Now how could these be in the celestial kingdom if those who "breaketh this [priesthood/oath] covenant after he hath received it, and altogether turneth therefrom, shall not have forgiveness of sins in this world nor int he world to come?" (D&C 84:40-41)

McLellin was an apostate, pure and simple even tho Smith envisioned him working miracles in the south and preaching there [none of which happened]. While it's true that some of these apostles returned to the church, they were not exactly the highest candidates for "godhood"/highest degree of glory upon returning.

Moses erred and was still a prophet,
Jonah erred and was still a prophet,
There were others I’m sure but their names escape me at the moment.
So prophets are just common men with a special “duty”?
Well that would explain why prophets of old were often ignored, misunderstood, shunned, and spurned especially by those who knew him/her as a child. See Matt 13:7 and Mark 6:4.
So if there is a prophet for today he would get ridiculed like those of old?

From all I heard on this thread Mr. Smith was either a charlatan or a prophet. No wiggle room here. With evidence pointing at both possibilities I guess it’s up to the seeker of truth and his/her God.

Labels used: Prophet, “common men”, duty, charlatan, “seeker of truth”, God.
Until we understand what a label means to another we cannot understand another’s perspective. - Truth-Miner

Every dispensation has a prophet tat the head, Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Joseph Smith. When Moses was trying to do all the governing himself, it was a mess, then he was counseled by his father to put men into groups and place men over them, Moses prayed about it, and organized the people into groups, thus it has been ever since. The head of this dispensation is Joseph Smith. (according to the LDS church)[DU]

First of all, this assumption overrides what the writer of Hebrews says in Heb. 1:1-2: "God...in times PAST" spoke "by the prophets [plural] "Hath in THESE LAST DAYS spoken unto us by His Son..."

Jesus Christ is our Living Prophet, the Full Revelation of God.

Secondly, it is outlandish that LDS prophets presume that God only and always speaks through them. For example, at the 2/26/80 BYU Devotional Assembly presented 14 "Fundamentals" in following The Prophets. Of course, #1 was: "The Prophet is the Only Man who speaks for God in everything."

How arrogant. How parochial. How limited its view of how God speaks.

LDS often "get on the case" for Christians for not recognizing the "need" for fresh, living revelation today. They think Christians "shut up" heaven.

In fact, it's LDS who "shut up" heaven, as if the revelation of God poured forth through one mere cloud that hangs over Salt Lake City 24/7. (But somehow this rain, if it really ever falls, hardly ever gets placed into the D&C scripture reservoir]

I said: FC, in your studies of Mormonism have you ever encountered one shred of evidence that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God?”

You responded: No, I can sincerely tell you that having made a lifetime hobby of examining odd religions, you beat even the Scientologists for the “not even close” award.

So you are deaf to testimony, deaf to scripture, deaf to witnesses, Deaf to the amazing things he has accomplished, yet you shut your eyes and claim it is all a trick.

How can you be an objective observer?

How can anyone accept your posts as well thought out?

I cut out all the “Comparisons with other religious leaders” because it is not relevant.

Same question applies.

Yes, it does, having studied a bit of Buddhism I can see how it descended from knowledge of God, Most protestant churches have much truth in them, the Catholics have a lot to offer, but to you Mormonism has nothing? No proofs, no wisdom, no truth?

And I can certainly accept that a certain amount of slippage will occur when well meaning people try to find a path to God.

“A certain amount of slippage”, you mean loss of information? So would you admit that different amounts of slippage will occur for different people? If yes, then you are stating that I am at 100% slippage, and you are at 0? This is a situation that simply cannot be.

But Mormons really take the cake. Joseph Smith has so many leading indicators towards being an utter fraud that I’d rather roll the dice with Mary Baker Eddy or L. Ron.

What was the phrase? Yeah, Yeah, yeah I have heard this all before. I have been told that people would eat their hats, and do other amazing, embarrassing and or dangerous things if Joseph Smith were actually a prophet. People also called Jesus a charlatan, and for many of the same reason " And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?".

Many of the “non believers” (is that better than Antis?) try to “Prove” the gospel either right or wrong, you do not want Faith to be involved at all, you want, you want, you want. When you cannot prove it true, you say you have proved it false. You begin to look for anything that can prove the falsity of what you cannot prove true. There will always be evidence to prove what you have already decided is true, Always.

All you can prove in a matter of faith is that you do not believe.

That’s how far I’ve been convinced by this thread in opposition, this nailed the lid shut.

I am so glad you’ve kept an open mind until now (LOL) if you had an open mind you would have at least listed testimony as the only evidence for Joseph Smith.

Don’t you find it at least strange that a boy of 14 in upstate NY, started a movement that drew many millions of people, Drained “un-drainable swamps, Designed and built cities, drew architectural plans, wrote books, inspired millions to better themselves preached of Christ with a doctrine that is still debated today and all this from a boy who had, if I remember correctly, a fourth grade education? No?

What have you done with your life?

Don’t you find it at least strange that a boy of 14 in upstate NY, started a movement that drew many millions of people, Drained “un-drainable swamps, Designed and built cities, drew architectural plans, wrote books, inspired millions to better themselves preached of Christ with a doctrine that is still debated today and all this from a boy who had, if I remember correctly, a fourth grade education? No?

Muhammad wasn't very literate. Look at its size today.

JoeSmith wasn't a "boy of 14" when he started the movement. Another myth you've bought into.

As far as "inspiring millions," if I'd plagiarized enough Scripture from the book of Isaiah, the NT, even quoting OT prophets a few hundreds year before they wrote what they wrote--like JS did in one instance--then circulate wide enough & long enough, its truth contained therein is meant to "inspire."

Give me the greatest-tasting cookie recipe in the history of man, let me "borrow it" for widespread circulation, and I could make a lot of "dough." (But what if I was to tell folks who died 30 yrs after eating plenty of those cookies that the reason they were dying is that they were slowing being poisoned to death because of a few "extra" ingredients I added...Oh sure, after tasting one they were "inspired" to eat more...but only to their own demise)

Secondly, it is outlandish that LDS prophets presume that God only and always speaks through them. For example, at the 2/26/80 BYU Devotional Assembly presented 14 "Fundamentals" in following The Prophets. Of course, #1 was: "The Prophet is the Only Man who speaks for God in everything."

How arrogant. How parochial. How limited its view of how God speaks.

LDS often "get on the case" for Christians for not recognizing the "need" for fresh, living revelation today. They think Christians "shut up" heaven.

Some times I just have to wonder if people are “not getting it” on purpose. You are perfectly entitled to receive revelation from God. You always have been. However, when God has a message for “everyone” he will do so through his prophet.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

I believe he was referring to Proverbs:

Ps. 82: 6 6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

This is my best guess, since Christ did not say which scripture he was referring to. All I know is that he made it very clear. People today would stone us for saying the same thing. Some things never change I suppose.

I find that verse very troubling. A couple of possibilities come to mind.

5) Jesus wasn’t who he said he was.
6) Somebody put words in his mouth that he didn’t say, and if they did, then they probably did it more than once and to others as well.

That verse is a huge RED flag that shouldn’t be ignored or glossed over. jmo

Muhammad wasn't very literate. Look at its size today.

The Moslem religion, converts by the edge of the sword and anyone who leaves it is under a death sentence and they have lots of kids. Mormonism is not even remotely like Moslems, it shows your lack of objectivity that you make this comparison. JoeSmith wasn't a "boy of 14" when he started the movement. Another myth you've bought into.

And you know his age, how?

As far as "inspiring millions," if I'd plagiarized enough Scripture from the book of Isaiah, the NT, even quoting OT prophets a few hundreds year before they wrote what they wrote--like JS did in one instance--then circulate wide enough & long enough, its truth contained therein is meant to "inspire."

So if it’s inspiring, what’s your problem? How many religious documents “borrow” from scripture? Most? What if you feel inspired? Can God not work through a 14 year old boy? Is anything impossible for God?

Give me the greatest-tasting cookie recipe in the history of man, let me "borrow it" for widespread circulation, and I could make a lot of "dough." (But what if I was to tell folks who died 30 yrs after eating plenty of those cookies that the reason they were dying is that they were slowing being poisoned to death because of a few "extra" ingredients I added...Oh sure, after tasting one they were "inspired" to eat more...but only to their own demise)

Why would you poison your cookies? You are limiting your profits (not prophets, but profits). You need not poison your Cookies if you have a great recipe, but you might put something in them to make them addictive, that way you could make more money.

Your entire cookie story crumbles when you do not come at it from the premise that Joseph Smith is a charlatan.

Why would a Charlatan go to his death rather than admit he was “Just Funnin”? Please answer that as a question that goes to the credibility of your statement that there is no evidence for Joseph Smith being a prophet. Why would he hold on until they killed him?

Some times I just have to wonder if people are “not getting it” on purpose. You are perfectly entitled to receive revelation from God. You always have been. However, when God has a message for “everyone” he will do so through his prophet.

Sometimes I wonder why folks have to make plain words not resemble what they mean.

When Benson said "The Prophet is the Only Man who speaks for God," he didn't leave it at that. He added another two words at the end of that statement, words which you seem to ignore: "The Prophet is the Only Man who speaks for God in everything."

What you just said is the "non-controversial" angle because, Delf, who doesn't believe that God can't speak to them in prayer (for example)? [I mean, in you saying what you did...that God personally speaks to folks...I hope that doesn't put you way far out on some eccentric theological limb...:)]

But IF you said, as did Benson, that the ONLY one who can prophesy truth resides in SLC, not only does that contradict what Paul told the Corinthians when he was talking about the gifts of the spirit, but it also means that LDS think that the only "cloud of prophesy" is permanently parked over SLC.

So, let's hear it straight from your mouth: Yes, you believe that all folks can hear "personal revelation" from God, but go on say it: You also believe any and all prophesies can only come from Zion...No, that's not right, Zion is in Independence, MO...strike that...can only come from SLC, the new spiritual Zion that's meant to replace the real geographical one.

And you know his age, how?

Joseph Smith was born December 23, 1805, he didn't "start" the Church until 1827 at age 22 and didn't incorporate the Church or publish the BOM until he was 25 in 1830. Are you disputing these facts? It is your cookie that crumbles when we clearly point to a grown man charlatan instead of a 14 year old youth. Joseph Smith himself didn't write about his youthful "vision" until many years after it occured. Do you have any proof it occured when he was 14?

The BoM was written in In June 1828 - Smith allowed Martin Harris to take 116 pages of the manuscript to Palmyra to show Harris' wife (remember). At this time Joseph Smith was 24 years old and not an unwitting 14 year old innocent youth, but a married man.

1) Psalms is not and never was part of the law.
2) Jesus should have known that.
3) How could he make such an egregious mistake? As a prophet how could he say something and have it not be so?
4) Do you know how they were instructed to deal with prophets that said things that were not so? Oh yeah, I see that you do.

The quote is also in Isaiah, see my earlier post 2695.

We also know that the “Law” contained the book of Enoch among others we are missing. The book of Enoch is now available online and it speaks of men being the children of God. The book of Enoch was being quoted every time Jesus said “Son of man” in that that was specifically used in a messianic prophecy, Jesus and all the gospels quoted form the Book of Enoch.

I do however find it interesting that you immediately jump to the conclusion that Either Jesus was a fraud, or people were altering the scriptures we have now on purpose.

... with part of the "power" formula being eternal power promised by the "prophet" himself.

You get an instant pay-out just for signing up. But with a bunch of pregnant wives on your hands, you're going to stay put, aren't you? You can't exactly travel around America with these women in tow, as an obvious polygamist. You also have to work pretty hard to support them all. This glues you into the fold pretty securely, assures Smith, Young, etal. of an army of laborers for their various enterprises and even more worker ants as those (thoroughly indoctrinated) offspring come of age and start producing even more worker ants.

But reality soons sets in, as you begin to feel the downside of the deal. That's when the second gimmick kicks in. Money. You're never out of work. The church sees to that by always having something for you to do to help build its wealth. So for the first time in your life, you always have everything you need. That makes it even harder to take off. You look back at where you came from and see only the failures, the loneliness, the risk and uncertainty. You've made the classic mistake of trading freedom for security. But you'll stand pat because money talks and thinking for yourself makes your head hurt anyway.

But as time goes by, you begin to chaff under the tyrannical hand of your glorious leader. You begin to envy his power and status and resent being under his thumb. So he promises you power beyond reckoning in the life to come, emphasizing that your life of obedience and virtual servitude is "only for a time." And you buy that too. You go for it because he's already delivered on his first two promises. You go for it because he's made examples of those who defy his authority. You go for it because everybody around you is doing that and how could they all be wrong?

This is how Smith and Young held onto their power and their empire.

In contrast to the Earp-Holliday-Masterson racketeering schemes, which merely aimed at controlling liquor, prostitution and gambling in one town at a time, Smith and Young thought big. I have to give them credit for that.

JoeSmith wasn't a "boy of 14" when he started the movement. Another myth you've bought into. And you know his age, how?

I kind of thought you might answer that way, but only because you've had your Mormon lenses on too long.

When you read all the LDS P.R. stuff about JS, it's age 14 this and age 14 that.

But Joe was born in 1805. At age 23 (1828) he joined the Methodist church. Whatever supposedly happened to him almost 9 years before wasn't solid enough for him to effect his church membership, even tho later he said he was told to "join none of them" well before he "joined one of them."

Even if you believe that two unnamed personages appeared to him during his mid-teens, at the very least JoeSmith was in apostasy through 1828. There was no was no LDS movement pre-1829 (and some would even say, pre-1830).

So, all I've done is point out that this man began a movement when he was 24-25 years old (even if its roots go a little deeper).

To emphasize this point: Take all of FastCoyote's "tales" about his divinity. Let's say FC is 14 now. Let's say that in a decade, FastCoyote binds up all of his sageness into a single volume called "The Wily Wiles of FastCoyote," and the disciples he seems slow of convincing on FR today mushroom in the year 2017.

Now you and I can argue over the true "root" date--was it 2007 or was it 2017?..but if FastCoyote had never shared any of his sageness from 2007 to 2016, I really don't think you would have much ground to stand on in opposing my contention that his movement began in 2017...and that any other date is pure myth. [Especially if no official & original Vision from Coyote's visit by his Coyote personages even emerges til he turned 30+ in the year 2023]

Why would a Charlatan go to his death rather than admit he was “Just Funnin”?

Well, you raise a good question, 'cause it's the same question raised about why the early disciples would be martyred.

But there's a big difference in their "martyrdom."

First of all, Joe was trying all he could do behind the scenes (via others) to be moved. He wasn't exactly a "volunteer" for such martyrdom. Hence, that's why he brandished a weapon in self-defense when his cell was attacked. Joe killed & wounded some of his attackers before being killed...understandable, mind you, but not exactly befitting his mythic martyr role if he was so "voluntary" in giving his life. If anything, he was doing all he could to avoid such martyrdom.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.