Mitt the Mormon -- Why Romney needs to talk about his faith.

You already posted those same accusations at

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1917911/posts?page=118#118

and I responded to them here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1917911/posts?page=273

In post 278 of that thread you indicate that you saw my reply, but here you are making the same accusations all over again without correcting any of the misleading statements or errors in them. I’ll leave it for others to draw what conclusions they will from that, but here is the rebuttal again anyway:

“Example 1: The Book of Mormon was anti-polygamy; but then its original prophet WAS a polygamist”

The BoM indicates there are time where polygamy is allowed by God and time where he forbids it. Our practice has been consistent with that.

“Example 2: LDS said black skin was a “curse” and prevented blacks from the priesthood. Then they changed their mind in 1978.”

There was a time when only Levities could hold the Priesthood and only Israelites could become Christians. That was changed by revelation to Peter. Brigham Young said a day would come when blacks would be allowed by God to hold the priesthood too and the revelation to allow that came in 1978. Several times before then the leaders of the Church sought to know from God if the time had come and were told no. No reason for the ban was never revealed and the speculations of individuals are not doctrine of the church.

“Example 3: LDS were largely anti-slavery in history. But then you get curious pro-slave owner “Scriptural” passages like Doctrine & Covenants 134:12.”

The verse in no way endorses slavery, it only outlines how missionaries in areas where slavery is legal should work within the law. They should not attempt to provoke a rebellion or endanger the life of a slave by going behind the back of the owner. In the NT a Christian, Paul sent a runaway slave Onesimus back to his master, Philemon.

“Example 4: Except for the doctrine of grace and some others, just about all of the major distinctions between LDS & the historic Christian faith doesn’t even come from the Book of Mormon. What that means is that LDS theology itself “evolved””

The purpose of the BoM was to restore the fullness of the gospel. The gospel is faith, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost and enduring to the end. The BoM adds significant clarity to what people have argued over in the Bible for ages on those topics.

The gospel is a part of the plan of salvation. Our understanding of the plan of salvation did grow over time as more and more information was revealed and added to what we already had, but the implication that what was already known changed over time is false in spite of several dishonest attempts to make it look so by taking bits of things out of context.

“Example 5: LDS position on abortion. If you read the LDS position on abortion (particularly the one I’ve seen written for LDS bishops), it initially comes across as “pro-life.” But as you read it carefully, you realize that the holes in this cheese”

The church will not take action against a member who gets an abortion because of rape, incest, or if the pregnancy is judged by the appropriate medical authorities as endangering the life of the mother. The church is also very clear that just because those conditions exist doesn’t automatically mean an abortion is justified or acceptable to God. We believe in personal revelation, and a mother-to-be in that situation has a duty to take the matter up with God personally. She will also answer to God personally for what she does.

“Here is the most salient reason: Until 1978, the so-called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was an officially racist organization.”

If you look in the OT, you will see that the priesthood was limited to those of Aaron’s lineage, and the gospel at first went only to the Jews. If someone is going to call us racist for that, they must also accuse Moses and Christ of the same thing. They would also have to brand Catholics and most other Christian churches as sexist organizations for not ordaining women.

We did not ordain blacks to the priesthood until 1978 and God did not reveal the reason for the restriction, but he did reveal that it was temporary. Brigham Young said a day would come when the ban would end which makes no sense if it was motived by racism. Also when the ban was lifted members rejoiced over it, they didn’t resist it or begrudge it. Compare that to the conflicts in society during the civil rights struggle and tell me where the racists are.

If you look at history, we did not force blacks out to form their own black churches, we did not burn crosses on their yards or lynch them, we were against slavery in the 1800’s and we disagreed with those orthodox ministers that claimed blacks had no souls and were not saved by the atonement. We did not turn a blind eye if some slave master raped a black woman he owned like some ministers would.

Hitchens is also factually wrong when he calls Smith a ‘convicted fraud’. He was harassed
by a lot of false accusations, but he always won his case.

You are wrong. Smith was convicted of fraud for his peep stone business on March 20, 1826
in the court of Justice Albert Neely. You can read the details here.

In addition, Smith was charged with numerous counts of fraud in the Kirtland Safety Society
fiasco. He escaped prosecution only because he fled Ohio.

You should also know that Smith was under indictment for "treason, murder, arson, burglary,
robbery, larceny, and perjury" in Missouri -- and escaped prosecution from there only
because he broke jail.

Finally, FARMS and FAIR are sponsored by the Utah Mormon Church. They are notorious for
churning out false information in support of Mormon doctrine. You are strongly advised to not
believe anything they publish without independent verification from reputable sources.

So not only a NY conviction + counts in Ohio & Missouri, but also he wasn’t in jail for “nothin’” in Illinois. The printing press vandals were operating under the strict authority of LDS leaders, especially Smith who had the most to lose re: the exposure of polygamy.

That’s non sequitur. Has nothing to do what subject.

Talk about spinning........

Seems that's a common trait among mormon apologists....

“Smith was convicted of fraud for his peep stone business on March 20, 1826”

There are conflicting versions of what went on, but Gordon Madsen, the leading authority on that case, says the one with the most credibility is that Joseph was accused of defrauding his employer by the nephew of his employer, but his employer testified in Joseph’s defense leading to a dismissal of the case. See the article I posted a link to.

“He escaped prosecution only because he fled Ohio...and escaped prosecution from there only because he broke jail.”

If he was not prosecuted, he was not convicted now was he. Now, if you were facing the possibility of standing trial in a court where you knew for a fact you would not get a fair hearing, and had the options of leaving to avoid that kangaroo court, would you leave? Didn’t God deliver apostles out of imprisonment in the NT?

“Finally, FARMS and FAIR are sponsored by the Utah Mormon Church. They are notorious for churning out false information in support of Mormon doctrine. You are strongly advised to not believe anything they publish without independent verification from reputable sources.”

FARMS and FAIR turn out scholarly, peer reviewed work that stands up under scrutiny. I post there stuff all the time here and all the critics do is smear and sneer that it’s from them without EVER giving any evidence to support their claims that their work is less than scholarly. Just like you just did.

The Mormon writer Francis W. Kirkham just could not allow himself to believe that the 1826 court record was authentic. He, in fact, felt that if the transcript were authentic it would disprove Mormonism:

“A careful study of all facts regarding this alleged confession of Joseph Smith in a court of law that he had used a seer stone to find hidden treasure for purposes of fraud, must come to the conclusion that no such record was ever made, and therefore, is not in existence.... had he [Joseph Smith] made this confession in a court of law as early as 1826, or four years before the Book of Mormon was printed, and this confession was in a court record, it would have been impossible for him to have organize the restored Church. (A New Witness For Christ In America, vol. 1, pages 385-387)

“If a court record could be identified, and if it contained a confession by Joseph Smith which revealed him to be a poor, ignorant, deluded, and superstitious person unable himself to write a book of any consequence, and whose church could not endure because it attracted only similar persons of low mentality—if such a court record confession could be identified and proved, then it follows that his believers must deny his claimed divine guidance which led them to follow him.... How could he be a prophet of God, the leader of the Restored Church to these tens of thousands, if he had been the superstitious fraud which ‘the pages from a book’ declared he confessed to be?” (Ibid., pp.486-487)

The noted Mormon apologist Hugh Nibley published a book in which this statement appeared: “...if this court record is authentic it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith.” (The Myth Makers, 1961, page 142) On the same page we read that such a court record would be “the most devastating blow to Smith ever delivered.” Because he could see the serious implications of the matter, Dr. Nibley tried in every way possible to destroy the idea that the court record was an authentic document.
As we indicated earlier, in 1971 Wesley P. Walters made an astounding discovery which destroyed many of the arguments Mormon writers had used to discredit the 1826 Court record. While searching through some old records stored in the basement of the county jail in Norwich, New York, Wesley Walters and Fred Poffarl discovered two documents from Bainbridge which confirmed the authenticity of the printed court record. The most important was Justice Albert Neely’s bill to the county for his fees in several legal matters he was involved with in 1826. The fifth item from the top mentioned the case of “Joseph Smith The Glass looker.”

The fact that Justice Neely said Joseph Smith was a "Glass looker" fits very well with the published version of the legal proceedings. Hugh Nibley and other Mormon apologists became strangely silent after these documents were discovered.

While most Mormon scholars accepted the evidence which Wesley Walters discovered, an overzealous supporter of Joseph Smith decided to resort to forgery in an attempt to discredit the documents. In 1986 Ronald Vern Jackson, a Mormon researcher who wrote the book The Seer, Joseph Smith, appeared on the Mormon Church’s television Station, KSL-TV with the startling claim that Justice Neely’s bill had been altered. He claimed that the name “Josiah Stowell” originally appeared on the document, but that these words had been changed to “Joseph Smith.” Although Mr. Jackson did not directly state it, the implications were clear-Walters had found a genuine bill referring to Josiah Stowell and that he had deliberately altered it to discredit the prophet Joseph Smith! Jackson professes to believe that Mark Hofmann was not alone in creating forgeries. In an introduction to his publication of the Mark Hofmann Interviews, Jackson wrote that he had “very incriminating evidence that others were involved!” He also declared that “It was a conspiracy to rewrite L.D.S church history and Mark Hofmann was but a pawn that was sacrificed to save the King. There are those who would love to disgrace the L.D.S. church by proving it’s history to be a sham. And Mark Hofmann was the tool through which they were going to do it.” He also stated that “Mark Hofmann was just the tip of the iceberg,...” In an advertisement for his publications, we find the following:

“So incriminating is his [Jackson’s] evidence, information and documentation in this case, not only of Hofmann, and his Associates, but of the ‘Wider’ Co-conspiratorial Ring, that several attempts have been made on his life!” We understand that Mr. Jackson has hinted that the King of Mormon document forgery is a minister who lives in the Midwest. Since Wesley P. Walters pastors a church in Illinois and is deeply involved in research on Mormon history, it seems reasonable to believe that Jackson is hinting that he is the “King.”

In any case, Wesley P. Walters made these observations about Ronald Jackson’s charges:

“Recently, Ron Jackson, a pro-Mormon historian from Bountiful, Utah, appeared on KSL-TV in Salt Lake City and claimed that the 1826 justice of the peace bill had been altered. He claimed that when this writer was lecturing in Salt Lake City in 1976, a friend had inadvertently picked up some of this writer’s notes and kept them. Accompanying the notes, he claimed, was a reproduction of the trial bill as it originally read. Jackson said that instead of reading the people ‘vs. Joseph Smith the glass looker,’ it originally read, ‘vs. Josiah Stowell the glass looker.’

“The reproduction bearing the name Josiah Stowell and purportedly obtained from this writer’s notes shows signs of forgery. Someone has obliterated parts of ‘Joseph’ and in a sloppy hand tried to change this to read ‘Josiah.’ He has left the ‘S’ of ‘Smith’ but obliterated the remainder and placed the name ‘Stowell’ into that space. The final ‘ell’ in Stowell appears to have been taken from the name Darnell, which appears further down in the same manuscript, and inserted as the final letters of Stowell. Moreover, the letter ‘a’ in Josiah and the ‘o’ in Stowell do not match the way these letters are formed in the rest of the document, and the crossing of the ‘t’ is quite different.” (Personal Freedom Outreach Newsletter, April-June 1986, p. 2)

[Calpernia at FR]

The printing press vandals were operating under the strict authority of LDS leaders, especially Smith who had the most to lose re: the exposure of polygamy.

The Nauvoo Expositor attacked Smith for (1) polygamy, (2) attempting to unite church and state, (3) grasping for political power, (4) financial maneuvering and land speculation, (5) screening certain individuals from justice, (6) countenancing attendance at dance halls and dram shops, (7) his constant denunciation of Missouri, (8) misuse of the privileges granted by the Nauvoo charters, and (9) organizing secret societies. The newspaper called for the repeal of the charters, the end of disobedience and abuses, and Smith's censure for "moral imperfections."

Smith responded by ordering his henchmen to destroy the paper -- they complied. This split the Mormon body, especially they learned the charges were abundantly true -- and that Smith had blatantly lied only a few days before the newspaper was published; viz.

"I, like Paul, have been in perils, and oftener than anyone in this generation. As Paul boasted, I have suffered more than Paul did. I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my brethren think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has constituted me so curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil – all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam … Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me … God knows that the charges against me are false … what a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can find only one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers." -- Joseph Smith, Jr., May 26, 1844.

Within a few days, things had deteriorated to the point where Smith was forced to flee Nauvoo along with his brother Hyrum and Porter Rockwell. Out of food, with no money and with no place of refuge, the trio returned within a week and were transfered to the Carthage Jail. The Smith Brothers were killed about five days after that in a blotched jailbreak.

You can read much more about Smith in Fawn Brodie's classic book No Man Knows My History. It is extremely well written and has withstood the test of time.

Re. Peep stone business: There are conflicting versions of what went on.

The record is quite clear. The trial transcript plainly states that Smith admitted he convinced a farmer in Northern Pennsylvania that Spanish Conquistadors had discovered an Indian treasure and buried the gold on his farm. In his defense, Smith admitted the farmer dug in the spot indicated by Smith's peep stone, to the depth indicated by Smith, without success. However, Smith asserted the farmer dug so slow that the ground opened parted and the treasure sank -- thus it was still there and Smith was innocent of all charges. The court was not convinced, as noted by the posted document.

Re. Smith was justified in breaking jail in Ohio because he was convinced he would not get a fair hearing.

That doesn't mean Smith was innocent. In fact the Kirtland Safety Society disaster was the largest financial fraud in this country's history up to that time. Smith and Rigdon illegally opened a bank without the necessary charter and issued money based on the promise their vault was full of silver -- when in fact they merely had boxes of dirt covered with silver dollars. Again, this farce is abundantly documented.

Re. FARMS and FAIR turn out scholarly, peer reviewed work that stands up under scrutiny.

Not everything stands up to scrutiny, by a long shot. Sometime do a Google Search on the information in this site: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, among others.

You can be a nice person when you are not acting out of hatred. You should try it more often.

The BoM indicates there are time where polygamy is allowed by God and time where he forbids it. Our practice has been consistent with that.

Yeah, and I suppose some future LDS "revelation" might say there are times where same-sex marriage is "allowed" by the Mormon god and times where he forbids it, eh? The problem in the first place is allowing the latter alleged "revelation" to interpret the former one...when the NOBLE Biblical way is go the reverse route, as did the Bereans in Acts 17:11. (So "no" you didn't "correct" any "misleading statement" here)

Stop imposing the Book of Mormon on the Bible. The Bible is authoritative enough ALONE, thank you! (Otherwise, we wouldn't see the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints offer stand-alone "free" KJV Bibles in its TV ads, now would we? Also, ya wanna show me where Joe Smith "corrected" any OT passages on polygamy in his JST version?)

There was a time when only Levities could hold the Priesthood and only Israelites could become Christians. That was changed by revelation to Peter. Brigham Young said a day would come when blacks would be allowed by God to hold the priesthood too and the revelation to allow that came in 1978. Several times before then the leaders of the Church sought to know from God if the time had come and were told no. No reason for the ban was never revealed and the speculations of individuals are not doctrine of the church.

Well, you get an "A" for effort for your honey-glazed version of this. I guess you weren't around to be the "consultant" for the First Presidency in 1947. (You could have properly coached them on how to reframe their following statement):

"From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the gospel." (Statement of The First Presidency on the Negro Question, July 17, 1947, quoted in Mormonism and the Negro pp.46-47)

Now, all, note the "trick" of an LDS apologist. I mention "skin color" and an alleged "curse" associated with that. What does the apologist respond to? Neither, directly, but rather tries to refocus attention upon priesthood qualifications--as if I ever addressed only priesthood qualifications!!!

Grig, time to study up on the BoM: What LDS scriptural passages carry full doctrinal revelational import that LDS believe that the dark skin of Native Americans, Hispanics, and people of African descent is a curse from God due to moral inferiority and spiritual unrighteousness? Well take a look at Moses 7:8,22 and Alma 3:6,9 (see also 2 Nephi 5:21-22 and Mormon 5:15.

The verse [D&C 134:12] in no way endorses slavery, it only outlines how missionaries in areas where slavery is legal should work within the law. They should not attempt to provoke a rebellion or endanger the life of a slave by going behind the back of the owner. In the NT a Christian, Paul sent a runaway slave Onesimus back to his master, Philemon.

If I recall Philemon correctly, Paul didn't send him back but rather appealed to Philemon to put aside any claim on Onesimus as Paul wanted him to remain with him.

OK, let's take this out of the "talked about" light and put it into the open light for all to see: Here's D&C 134:12:

We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.

This passages makes it quite clear that although Paul was one to vie for the religious freedom of Onesimus, LDS think that "religious freedom" applies to everyone except slaves!

D&C 134:12 "settles" the issue for the Mormon: Are slaves & trafficking victims worthy of the "gospel?" LDS Answer? Nope! "neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them..." says LDS "Scripture" (and Mr. George Romney who referenced this specific Scripture.)

And why not? Well, says D&C 134:12: We don't want ta meddle with the Mastuhs' business property, or to say it as precisely as LDS "Scripture" says it: nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life...

(Nah. We can't have unhappy slaves now, can we? Too disturbing to their "stations" of life, eh?)

Now what are the ultimate reasons for this again? D&C 134:12 provides the answer:

Reason #1: ...such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust... (There ya have it...wouldn't want to be "unjust" by giving slaves the gospel & baptizing them, would ya?)

Reason #2: ...and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude. (And, of course, the "closer": Wouldn't want to disturb the peace & quiet of slavery-sanctioning governments, now would ya?)

[Grig: Want to try again?...so much for "correcting" my "misleading" statement]

The purpose of the BoM was to restore the fullness of the gospel. The gospel is faith, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost and enduring to the end...Our understanding of the plan of salvation did grow over time as more and more information was revealed and added to what we already had, but the implication that what was already known changed over time is false in spite of several dishonest attempts to make it look so by taking bits of things out of context.

First of all, the D&C itself says that the BoM WAS the FULLNESS (not partiality) of the everlasting gospel. Secondly, can you please show me where the "restored" gospel of priesthood authority is in any part of the Book of Mormon? (Is this and the alleged 100% apostasy not part of the "restored" gospel? If not why is this NOW one of the three most important doctrines and missionary lesson plans of the LDS church?)

Can you please show me ANY BoM reference to a god who was a former man? Or who had a body of a man? Or wouldn't it be mightily "gospel important" to happen to mention that the end of goal of "eternal progression" is godhood? Wanna tell us where to find that in the BoM? Or how about that multiple gods exist--like a "council of gods?" Where can you show us the vital gospel truth about the pre-existent spirits in the BoM?

If the end goal is heaven, and the gospel is the good news that gets us there, where are the degrees of heaven or salvation mentioned in the BoM? Where is proxy second-chance salvation or baptizing dead folks in the BoM? Isn't baptizing dead folks a "gospel" activity?

[I could go on & on yet you have the gall to say but the implication that what was already known changed over time is false...]

The church will not take action against a member who gets an abortion because of rape, incest, or if the pregnancy is judged by the appropriate medical authorities as endangering the life of the mother. The church is also very clear that just because those conditions exist doesn’t automatically mean an abortion is justified or acceptable to God. We believe in personal revelation, and a mother-to-be in that situation has a duty to take the matter up with God personally. She will also answer to God personally for what she does.

Oh, that's nice. Just pray to God, and the Creator of that pre-born baby is now an alleged accomplice to murder 'cause he said, "Go ahead & kill the baby!"??? (Is that what you're saying?) Now what happens if LDS parents start praying for "personal revelation" about already-born infants?

As for the rest of your dribble, it's all sized up quite well when you describe moms of pre-born babies as "a mother-to-be" and include full-time and part-time abortionists under the broad umbrella of "appropriate medical authorities."

(May I suggest that when Jesus was inside Mary, that she wasn't simply a "mother-to-be," but was already a mom? May I suggest you study the NT where the Greek word for an already-born infant is the same as a pre-born infant? May I suggest you study any long-standing obstetrics manual where the pregnant mom is referenced as the first patient and the pre-born is referenced as the second patient?)

“The record is quite clear. The trial transcript plainly states...”

Transcript? You mean record supposedly torn from Judge Neely docket book by Miss Emily Pearsall? Tuttle and others had access to that account for several years but it was never published when Pearsall was alive and the pages were never allowed to be examined. You quoted Nibley earlier, read it again in context:

“You knew its immense value as a weapon against Joseph Smith if its authenticity could be established. And the only way to establish authenticity was to get hold of the record book from which the pages had been purportedly torn. After all, you had only Miss Pearsall’s word for it that the book ever existed. Why didn’t you immediately send her back to find the book or make every effort to get hold of it? Why didn’t you “unearth” it, as they later said you did? ... The authenticity of the record still rests entirely on the confidential testimony of Miss Pearsall to the Bishop. And who was Miss Pearsall? A zealous old maid, apparently: “a woman helper in our mission,” who lived right in the Tuttle home and would do anything to assist her superior. The picture I get is that of a gossipy old housekeeper. If this court record is authentic, it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith. Why, then, [speaking to Tuttle] was it not republished in your article in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge after 1891? ...in 1906 Bishop Tuttle published his Reminiscences of a Missionary Bishop in which he blasts the Mormons as hotly as ever...yet in the final summary of his life’s experiences he never mentions the story of the court record - his one claim to immortal fame and the gratitude of the human race if it were true!
— Hugh Nibley, Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass, The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley: Volume 11, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1991), 246.

Nibley wasn’t fretting the matter, he was daring critics to actually validate their claim. They haven’t, and the most logical explanation is that they CAN’T validate it.

You have only been presented with an oversimplified and misleading account designed to lead you to a specific pre-chosen conclusion. Try looking at the other side of the coin with fairness. http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2002_1826_Trial_of_Joseph_Smith.html

While you are at it, read up on the KSS too:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Kirtland_Safety_Society

“That doesn’t mean Smith was innocent.”

As far as the law is concerned, he is presumed innocent, but the issue here was the Hitchens called him a convicted fraud and that is just not true.

“Not everything stands up to scrutiny, by a long shot. Sometime do a Google Search on the information in this site: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, among others.”

Show me where FARMS or FAIR are factually wrong or logically invalid, or unscholarly in some other way and I’ll be happy to bring it to their attention. As for ULM, their stuff gets posted here a lot and I havn’t been impressed. They just recycle a bunch of stuff that was debunked long ago.

The noted Mormon apologist Hugh Nibley ...

Is this the same Hugh Nibley that authenticated Joseph Smith's translation of the
Egyptian papyrus purchased from Michael Chandler that became the Book of
Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price?

Or do you think this award winning documentary is referring to a different Hugh
Nibley.

Ann Romney talking about her husband has recalled the period when her MS was taking a terrible toll and she was in deep depression fearful she wouldn’t be able to take care of her family or even cook for Mitt. She said Mitt told her not to worry that even if she spent the rest of her life in a wheelchair and he had nothing to eat but toast, as long as they were together it would be all right.

Some think you prove your family values by wearing your religion on your sleeve or by constantly proclaiming your morality in front of the right audiences. I think living a morally upright life that is faithful to your religious beliefs and your marriage vows is a better indication of what your core values are. I have no problem with Romney’s Mormonism. I’d say it’s an asset and would be a plus if he were up against the cynical, corrupt Hillary Clinton. Americans don’t want the slimy Clintons back in the White House stinking up the place.

“Hitchens is also factually wrong when he calls Smith a ‘convicted fraud’. He was harassed by a lot of false accusations, but he always won his case.”

Holy crap, are you delusional. Talk about getting your “facts” from an unbiased source. fairlds.org? Puh-leeeeeze.....

STATE OF NEW YORK v. JOSEPH SMITH

Warrant issued upon written complaint upon oath of Peter G. Bridgeman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an imposter. Prisoner brought before Court March 20, 1826.

Prisoner examined: says that he came from the town of Palmyra, and had been at the house of Josiah Stowel in Bainbridge most of time since; had small part of time been employed in looking for mines, but the major part had been employed by said Stowel on his farm, and going to school. That he had a certain stone which he had occasionally look at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold mines were at a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowel several times, and had informed him where he could find these treasures, and Mr. Stowel had been engaged in digging for them. That at Palmyra he pretended to tell by looking at this stone where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania and while at Palmyra had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was of various kinds; that he had occasionally been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years, but of late had pretty much given it up on account of its injuring his health, especially his eyes, making them sore; that he did not solicit business of this kind, and had always declined having anything to do with this business.

Josiah Stowel sworn: says that prisoner had been at his house something like five months; had been employed by him to work on farm part of time; that he pretended to have skill of telling where hidden treasures in the earth were by means of looking through a certain stone; that prisoner had looked for him sometimes; once to tell him about money buried in Bend Mountain in Pennsylvania, once for gold on Monument Hill, and once for a salt spring; and that he positively knew that the prisoner could tell, and did possess the art of seeing those valuable treasures through the medium of said stone; that he found the [word illegible] at Bend and Monument Hill as prisoner represented it; that prisoner had looked through said stone for Deacon Attleton for a mine, did not exactly find it but got a p- [word unfinished] of ore which resembled gold, he thinks; that prisoner had told by means of this stone where a Mr. Bacon had buried money; that he and prisoner had been in search of it; that prisoner had said it was in a certain root of a stump five feet from the surface of the earth, and with it would be found a tail feather; that said Stowel and prisoner thereupon commenced digging, found a tail feather, but money was gone; that he supposed the money moved down. That prisoner did offer his services; that he never deceived him; that prisoner looked through stone and described Josiah Stowel’s house and outhouses, while at Palmyra at Simpson Stowel’s, correctly; that he had told about a painted tree, with a man’s head painted upon it, by means of said stone. That he had been in company with prisoner digging for gold, and had the most implicit faith in prisoner’s skill.

Arad Stowel sworn: says that he went to see whether prisoner could convince him that he possessed the skill he professed to have, upon which prisoner laid a book upon a white cloth, and proposed looking through another stone which was white and transparent, hold the stone to the candle, turn his head to look, and read. The deception appeared so palpable that witness went off disgusted.

McMaster sworn: says he went with Arad Stowel, and likewise came away disgusted. Prisoner pretended to him that he could discover objects at a distance by holding this white stone to the sun or candle; that prisoner rather declined looking into a hat at his dark colored stone, as he said that it hurt his eyes.

Jonathon Thompson: says that prisoner was requested to look for chest of money; did look, and pretended to know where it was; and prisoner, Thompson and Yeomans went in search of it; that Smith arrived at spot first; was at night; that Smith looked in hat while there, and when very dark, and told how the chest was situated. After digging several feet, struck something sounding like a board or plant. Prisoner would not look again, pretending that he was alarmed on account of the circumstances relating to the trunk being buried [which] came all fresh to his mind. That the last time he looked he discovered distinctly the two Indians who buried the trunk, that a quarrel ensued between them, and that one of said Indians was killed by the other, and thrown into the hold beside the trunk, to guard it, as he supposed. Thompson says that he believes in the prisoner’s professed skill; that the board he struck his spade upon was probably the chest, but on account of an enchantment the trunk kept settling away from under them when digging; that notwithstanding they continued constantly removing the dirt, yet the trunk kept about the same distance from them. Says prisoner said that it appeared to him that salt might be found at Bainbridge, and that he is certain that prisoner can divine things by means of said stone. That as evidence of the fact prisoner looked into his hat to tell him about some money witness lost sixteen years ago, and that he described the amn the witness supposed had taken it, and the disposition of the money: And therefore the Court find the Defendant guilty.

- Joseph Smith’s 1826 court transcript

“The problem in the first place is allowing the latter alleged “revelation” to interpret the former one”

No, the BoM came first, indicating that monogamy was the rule except for times when otherwise commanded by God. This was before Mormons started practicing polygamy as command by God, and before they ended it as also commanded by God so there is no grounds for charging us with inconsistency in this matter.

“Well, you get an “A” for effort for your honey-glazed version of this. I guess you weren’t around to be the “consultant” for the First Presidency in 1947. (You could have properly coached them on how to reframe their following statement):”

The statement was correct for the time it was issued. It is a fact that BY said: [Blacks] can not receive the Priesthood; but the day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.” (Way to Perfection, pg 105)

“Now, all, note the “trick” of an LDS apologist. I mention “skin color” and an alleged “curse” associated with that. What does the apologist respond to? Neither, directly, but rather tries to refocus attention upon priesthood qualifications—as if I ever addressed only priesthood qualifications!!!”

Now all, note the tricks of anti-Mormons. I spoke of lineage because that is what the issue was. A person with a single black ancestor back 3 or 4 generations can look as white as I am, but they would still be denied the priesthood. Rather than admit that lineage is the issue however, the anti-Mormon tries to keep pushing racial hot buttons by focusing on skin color. Perhaps hoping that they can get away with ignoring valid comparisons to Biblical examples of gospel blessings being given to people of one lineage before another.

Where do you stand on the ordination of women I wonder? Do you call the Catholic church and other denominations that won’t ordain women sexist?

“What LDS scriptural passages carry full doctrinal revelational import that LDS believe that the dark skin of Native Americans, Hispanics, and people of African descent is a curse from God due to moral inferiority and spiritual unrighteousness? Well take a look at Moses 7:8,22 and Alma 3:6,9 (see also 2 Nephi 5:21-22 and Mormon 5:15.”

Moses 7:8,22 says nothing about moral inferiority and spiritual unrighteousness

Alma 3:6,9 Of course you have to skip past verses 7 and 8 since they contradict your assertions. It clearly states that it was Laman, Lemuel, the sons of Ishmael, and their wives that were cursed, specifically because they rebelled against “Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men” and sought to kill them.

Their descendants were marked with a darker skin specifically so that “their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction”.

Nothing in the BoM says Lamanites are inferior by nature, only that most of the time they were raised without the gospel and taught lies to make them hate the Nephites. The Nephites made great effort to bring them to a knowledge of the gospel, and welcomed converts and treated them as brothers (since they were after all). They were not baned from holding the priesthood as they were of the same lineage of the Nephites, there were times they were more righteous than the Nephites, there was a Lamanite prophet.

After the resurrected Christ visited them they united as one people and dropped the division of Nephite and Lamanite until later on when they all turned to wickedness again, and then the terms were more about ideology than anything else. Long before that however the Nephites were taught “a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins” (Jacob 3:9)

“Paul didn’t send him back but rather appealed to Philemon to put aside any claim on Onesimus as Paul wanted him to remain with him.”

Paul did send him back (”Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him” v12). Yes Paul wanted him to remain with him, but Paul respected Philemon’s rights as Onesimus owner and ASKED (”But without thy mind would I do nothing” v14). The book of Philemon is D&C134:12 in action.

“D&C 134:12 “settles” the issue for the Mormon: Are slaves & trafficking victims worthy of the “gospel?” LDS Answer? Nope!”

Stop trying to put words in our mouth we didn’t say. The Church doesn’t approve of slavery and being a slave doesn’t make a person unworthy of the gospel. It doesn’t say don’t teach them the gospel, it says don’t go behind the owners back, be up front and work within the law. Every Mormon missionary would hope the owner wouldn’t stand in their way, and if they do that person will just have one more thing to answer to God for. We stood against slavery, not by trying to start a bloody rebellion, but by trying to win over hearts and minds peacefully and offering a possible solution.

Did the apostles instigate any slave revolts in the Roman Empire? Did they instruct Christians to try and get some rebellions going? I don’t see any of that in the Bible, what I see is Paul respecting the laws, imperfect as they were, sending a runaway slave back to his master and respecting the legal rights of the master.

“First of all, the D&C itself says that the BoM WAS the FULLNESS (not partiality) of the everlasting gospel”

Yes, and the gospel is faith in Christ, repentance, baptism, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end in righteousness. The gospel is a SUBSET of the plan of salvation so citing a bunch of other parts of the plan of salvation and pointing out that they are not mentioned in the BoM is meaningless.

“yet you have the gall to say but the implication that what was already known changed over time is false...”

Because that is how it is. Additional revelations added to our understanding, it didn’t replace previous doctrines with something else as you implied.

“Just pray to God, and the Creator of that pre-born baby is now an alleged accomplice to murder ‘cause he said, “Go ahead & kill the baby!”??? (Is that what you’re saying?)”

God knows the end from the beginning. He knows if the doctors are right or wrong about the risk to the mother, he knows all the outcomes and impacts of every choice. We don’t. If God knew that carrying the child would wind up with both the woman and the child dead, what would be so bad about God telling the woman that in her specific case it’s OK to abort that she might live?

God has the right to determine matters of life and death. God commanded the armies of Israel to slaughter men, women and children (and even their livestock) in cold blood at times. Do you charge God with murder because of that? The obligation on the mother is to find out from God what his will is and then do it. If she wants to only pretend she did that and then go and do as she wants, she will have to account to God for it. It almost sounds like your beef is that the church doesn’t micro-manage members as much as you would like.

I imagine that a woman who was raped or was told her life would be at risk would be able to draw a great deal of comfort and strength from having God answer her and tell her that carrying the child is the right thing to do. Do you doubt God would answer a woman in crisis? Do you doubt God would give the right answer? Do you doubt that God’s answer would help her and comfort her?

I find the fact that he is a Mormon entirely irrelevant otherwise.

I'd like to hear him explain his magical protective Mormon underpants.

God knows the end from the beginning. He knows if the doctors are right or wrong about the risk to the mother, he knows all the outcomes and impacts of every choice. We don’t. If God knew that carrying the child would wind up with both the woman and the child dead, what would be so bad about God telling the woman that in her specific case it’s OK to abort that she might live?

Grig, you say "doctors" but in the U.S. 90% & up of the abortions are not done in either hospitals or doctors' offices but rather in free-standing abortion clinics. Now, since their bottom line is Abortions-R-us, I doubt that they are going to recommend very often NOT to for their client to get an abortion! As for "life" of the mother issues, it's extremely, extremely rare.

Under your scenario for every time God might reveal that a woman is going to die if she doesn't get an abortion, there might be 1,000 to 10,000 women who have a "false" "personal revelation" that God "told" them to get an abortion. (Tell me Grig, how often do you hear moms of already-born infants say, "God told me in a personal revelation to abort--cut short--the life of my already-born infant." And exactly how would that weigh in a human court, let alone God's eternal court? Do you think the "personal revelation" stuff would help a defendant on trial?)

God has the right to determine matters of life and death. God commanded the armies of Israel to slaughter men, women and children (and even their livestock) in cold blood at times. Do you charge God with murder because of that? The obligation on the mother is to find out from God what his will is and then do it.

This is absolutely chilling!!! My questions, Grig, are "Why stop with parents of pre-borns? If it's OK for this to happen a few inches up the birth canal pre-birth, why not post-birth? Does God get the 'blame' then, too, for telling Mom & her abortionist to 'slaughter' (your concession) the baby?

...find out from God what his will is [whether to slaughter or not to slaughter] and then go do it.?????? [Exhibit A of Mormon madness!!! No wonder the Mormon fundamentalists in the book UNDER THE BANNER OF HEAVEN had a personal revelation prophecy school and then wound up having personal revelations to kill one of the brothers' wife and young daughter!!!]

Did the apostles instigate any slave revolts in the Roman Empire? Did they instruct Christians to try and get some rebellions going? I don’t see any of that in the Bible, what I see is Paul respecting the laws, imperfect as they were, sending a runaway slave back to his master and respecting the legal rights of the master.

You need to understand that a good chunk of ancient slavery was not comparable to plantation slavery. Many afolk were indentured servants/slaves...there was no bankruptcy court...if you owed a debt, you worked/slaved away up to 7 yrs (or perhaps longer) to pay off the debt. Some slaves became almost to be considered as "family."

As for Onesimus, note that Paul (a) did consider him worthy of the gospel; and (b) sent him back with the understanding that Philemon would receive him "no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother." [We don't know if Onesimus was one in the economic slave category or not]

As for D&C 134:12, the worst of what you try to explain away & can't is this phrase: ...interference we believe to be...unjust... Please explain how it's an injustice to share the gospel with a slave minus owner permission?; or share the gospel with a trafficked prostitute minus pimp-owner permission? I can't understand the obvious reference to "unlawful"...but unjust? (Whose justice, God or man's?)