Have some popcorn, Resty, better for blood pressure. 
Posted on 10/04/2007 9:40:06 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
When Mitt Romney appeared last week (via closed circuit from California) before the Council of Retired Chief Executives meeting in Washington, he faced kindred souls: rich Republicans who had managed big enterprises. Yet the second question from the audience was whether Romney's Mormon faith was hurting his quest for the Republican presidential nomination. He replied that about the only people who brought up his religion were members of the media, an answer that simply is untrue.
Romney is asked about Mormonism wherever he goes. In my travels, I find his religious preference cited everywhere as the source of opposition to his candidacy. His response to the former chief executives that only reporters care about this issue sounded like a politician's tired evasion. Romney was either too obtuse to appreciate his problem or was stalling because he had not determined how to deal with it. Contact with his advisers indicates that it's the latter.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Yeah MHG, don’t you know the term is “Time and all Eternity,” not “all time and eternity?”
Sheesh....
(just kidding)
resty, do you have something of substance to say or are you just going to nit-pick over semantics?
Have some popcorn, Resty, better for blood pressure.
Yes. I received the list. What did you want to prove by it?
It is a good list, but hardly one that will prove Greg F.’s point.
Greg F. accused me of a sheltered view of Mormon history. I asked him for a list to prove that he was the one with a sheltered and distorted view of Mormon history. I am waiting for his list.
Since I have all the books you mentioned in my library, that hardly proves I have a sheltered view of Mormonism.
And why would you think those books would convince me that Mormonism is false, since in most cases the authors of those books themselves don’t feel that way.
Why am I not surprised? The man will say anything.
So I guess since Robert Novak is asking what some of us have been asking for the last year, that makes Robert Novak a bigot.
But I will leave you to your research. In leaving, I will give you some points to ponder.
Mormons have been having a really tough time reconciling their ‘faith’ in Joseph Smith, the ‘Prophet of the Restoration’, with his behavior. After all, pursuing and marrying women who were already married was never a practice ‘authorized’ by ‘the Lord’. In fact, adultery is condemned in the various sections of the D&C (including D&C 132), and in The Bible and The Book of Mormon (BoM).
According to Jacob 2:24 in the BoM: “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.” (ref. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jacob/2/24#24).
Yet in D&C 132:38-39, ‘the Lord’ ‘reveals’ to Joseph Smith:
v. 38: “David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.”
v. 39: “David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me,” (ref. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132/38#39).
Comparing what’s written in “the most correct of any book on earth” (quoting Joseph Smith about the BoM) and the written ‘revelation’ about polygamy in D&C 132, in 1843 ‘the Lord’ apparently forgot that 2,264+ years previously he'd regarded the practice of David and Solomon of having “wives and concubines” to be “abominable”. How fortunate for Joseph Smith that ‘the Lord’ had this lapse of memory (or changed his moral values) by 1843.
Another point is that having ‘translated’ the gold plates, including the Book of Jacob, Joseph Smith was already aware that what David and Solomon did was morally repugnant to ‘the Lord’ (as least in the time of the ancient BoM ‘prophet’, Jacob, if one believes in the historicity of the BoM). So why did Joseph Smith, in 1843, inquire of ‘the Lord’ about the practice of having “wives and concubines”? After all, he already knew the ‘mind and will of God’ on the subject because of his BoM ‘translation’ work.
Here’s what D&C 132:1 says:
“Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines “ (ref. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132/1#1).
What happened in Smith’s life in mid-1843 that necessitated his ‘inquiry’ of ‘the Lord’ about having “wives and concubines”? D&C 132:54 provides a major clue:
“And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.” (ref. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132/54#54).
Why would ‘the Lord’ threaten Emma, via words written by her husband, with destruction if she did not stay with him? Well, what had happened involving Joseph just two months prior to the written ‘revelation’ of D&C 132 (dated July 12, 1843)? In May 1843, at 37 years of age, Joseph Smith married 14-year old Helen Mar Kimball (as the genealogy records for Smith and Kimball on the LDS Church’s familysearch.org show, as does the Wives of Joseph Smith website).
By May 1843, Joseph already had at least two dozen polygamous wives, most of them in their 20s and 30s. Why? D&C 132:62-63 provides the answer:
v. 62: “And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.”
v. 63: “But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.” (ref. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132/62#63)
Joseph Smith pursued and married “virgins” so that they would “bear the souls of men” and “multiply and replenish the earth”. In his day, the only way for this to happen was through sexual intercourse (human artificial insemination wasn’t developed until the 20th-century). Again, ‘the Lord’ did not authorize Smith to marry women who already had a spouse (i.e., 'non-virgins').
I figure that the polygamous marriage between 37-year old Joseph Smith and 14-year old Helen Mar Kimball, which was instigated by Smith and not disclosed to the church’s membership, was the final straw for Emma, and she threatened to leave him. By mid-1843, she’d had more than enough of his affairs and 'discreet' polygamous marriages, and his pursuing women who were already married and single women in the Mormon community where she lived. How would any married LDS woman feel if her husband was a ‘skirt-chaser’ in her stake? The only way that Joseph could keep Emma from leaving him was to concoct a story that ‘the Lord’ would destroy her if she left. His threat worked.
The humiliation and heartbreak that Emma surely experienced as a result of Joseph’s behavior is part of his ‘legacy’ as 'Prophet of the Restoration', as is the heartbreak and trauma experienced by countless women and girls (and ‘Lost Boys’) in Mormonism-rooted polygamous groups (e.g., the FLDS church-cult) since the 1830s.
One of the more important issues relative to Joseph Smith that Latter-day Saints need to think about is why he behaved in a manner that deeply hurt and alienated his first wife and shocked and angered many converts to Mormonism.
[Harry Reid (D) is showing us what life is like with a Mormon leading the Senate.
The press doesn’t seem to like to advertise this fact.]
Yup. It’s the God thing. Heck, a lot of people here don’t want to admit it.
“Consequently, we do not discuss them with non-members so, our critics literally make up whatever stories they want about what these garments are like safe in the knowledge that we can only deny it. Nice, huh?”
Actually, it calls into question the sanity of electing a Mormon to the presidency. Secret oaths, handshakes, doctrine that can’t be discussed - all make for a presidency riddled with doubt and dark alleys of conspiracy chatter.
To what Religion do you belong?
Christ’s Church.
...I attend a congregation called Lifeline Community most Sundays and Bible study on Wednesdays. Sometimes I attend the Draper’s Valley Presbyterian Church, New Pilgrim Baptist Church, Calvary Salt Lake City, and Salt Lake Christian Church. I have recently attended Catholic Mass, although it feels a bit man-made to me, it is still in line with the teachings of the Bible and the Holy Spirit.
I was baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit. I belong to his body. No other Church except the LDS Church makes salvation contingent on belonging only to their particular congregation.
Draper’s Valley Presbyterian Church should be Hidden Valley Presbyterian Church of Draper.
Beer! Oh my gosh straight to hell for him.
I don't see any mention of the Holy Spirit or that He trumps a Prophet of God in either of those verses you quoted. It speaks of the verity that God spoke personally to prophets before Christ and in the days of the Apostles, the Lord was with them. The Holy Spirit does not "trump" the Prophet of the Lord, but affirms him.
John 16:12-15 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
12”I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.
I should also note that we have God’s word, the Bible. It is a record of God and the Spirit testifies of it.
The idea of the pentagram being associated with the occult is a modern invention, much like the rainbow being associated with homosexuality. That you have bought into that falsehood, MHGinTN, is more proof that you know nothing of the ancient origins of your Christian faith. The five pointed star was used anciently to represent the “Sons of God”. The six pointed star was used to represent the “fixed” stars in the heavens. Both are seen on the Temple. The inverted star is also associated with “The Morning Star”- and no, that doesn’t mean we worship Venus. The Hebrews knew nothing about that Greek god."The Morning Star" is a reference to Christ found repeatedly in the Revelation of John and the title "Morning Stars" used in the book of Hebrews to refer to the righteous. Its symbolism is rich in the declarations of the Son of God coming from the east, which is where that “star” is seen in the morning- heralding the return of light and knowledge. And so it carries that same symbolism. Much like Jesus Christ taught in parables so that those who had ears to hear might hear- likewise, symbols are used generously in the Temple to both reveal and conceal according to the understanding one has sought from Heavenly Father and their preparedness to receive further instructionn. MHGinTN I am sure is equally opposed to the rich symbolism found in the Catholic Church- in its rites and sacraments. I'm sure he believed the DaVinci Code was an accurate representation of Catholic leadership.
As for the oxen under the baptismal font, there are twelve of them, representing the twelve tribes of Isreal. Surrounding the tabernacle itself, in the Old Testament, was a large enclosed area protected by woven hangings attached to a movable wall. In this courtyard was located the altar of burnt offerings (altar of sacrifice) and the laver of water for the symbolic cleansing of hands and feet. In Solomon’s day, when a permanent temple was constructed, the laver was set on the backs of twelve oxen. You can find this in 1 Kings 7:23–26.
MHGinTN and his ilk throw around all kinds of lies and falsehoods. We have to clean up behind him or people come away with the wrong idea of what we believe and why. It is detestable, really, because they know exactly what they are doing. We counter their claims with facts and then they move to a different thread and repeat the exact same lie.
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.