Huckabee questions Mormons' belief

Associated Press ^ | December 11, 2007 | LIBBY QUAID

[LadyNavyVet]

“We rely on “what Jesus said or did”, not what we imagine He might do.”

“So, no extraBiblical stuff.”

I’ll post as I, not you, see fit, thank you very much. If you don’t like it, you are free to move on down the road.

[conservativegramma]

Your argument is pretty contorted.Okay let's examine it then. I give you an specific example using the statements of the LDS itself proving that Joseph Smith was a false prophet. Pretty straightforward. You come back with a reply, "Well, he was murdered before it could be fulfilled.." or basically something like that. 1st I note you didn't dispute any of it, probably because you can't. So....let's examine your thesis in more detail so you can understand:

Your assumption is that since Smith was murdered the prophecy became moot. Using deductive reasoning skills this would assume 1) God is not smart enough (or shall be say omniscient enough) to have known that Smith would be murdered when he 'supposedly' gave this information to Smith or 2) Being all-knowing and omniscient he knew Smith was going to be murdered and lied to Smith so that Smith would think otherwise and then issued all of those unfulfilled prophecies. Now again using any College level 101 Logic course you are left with 1) God is dumb or 2) God is a liar.

In any case something very much less than God. Or there is a 3rd choice which is the one I choose and that is Smith was a false prophet and you have to be completely brainwashed not to see this. However on a positive note this convoluted thinking certainly does prove the Mormon God is not the God of the Bible as the God of the Bible IS all-knowing, omniscient, omnipresent and mighty enough to have known EXACTLY how Smith would meet his end.

[conservativegramma]

Well, I sort give up trying to make sense to them. It is important for them to have the cliff area and drop stones on us. Mormon bashing is great sport here.

I'll remember this comment on "mormon bashing" for merely repeating the words of the LDS itself the next time a Mormon missionary stands at my door informing me what an Apostate I am and they are the only true church.

I assume the apostate bashing by mormons is fine and dandy? I also assume the cover-up as to what you really believe is okay also, just so long as no one bothers to point out the fact that you are covering up your own doctrine???? Hmmm sounds rather like the followers of Mohammed but I digress.

[conservativegramma]

Right on! Giuliani, Huckabee, AND Romney all carry too much baggage to ever defeat any of the Democrats. The only chance we have is Hunter or Tancredo.

[muawiyah]

One of the Commandments suggests you avoid IDOLOTRY, which, loosly transliterated, is (among many other things) substituting God's thought with human thought ~ that is, pretending you are God.

Considering you tossed that one off fairly quickly and without effort, what about the one on Murder?

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

What are you blathering about? I explained it in detail and you don’t believe it... So what?..... This is a political forum. Go beat up a missionary instead. They can handle it. There are extensive anti-mormon sites where you can strut your stuff. I thought we could keep the bashing to a site where the world class bashers can compete. I don’t believe in the Nicene Creed as I have told you before. Apparently you don’t read. You believe it. I don’t. We disagree. What part of we disagree don’t you get.??? I admit you well steeped in anti-mormon thought, you are not a lone ranger.

[conservativegramma]

What are you blathering about? I explained it in detail and you don’t believe it... So what?..... This is a political forum.

The only detail you've explained is that you can't handle what the LDS themselves have written. Sorry not my problem. And huh no missionaries can't handle it....whenever I show them the false prophecies of Joseph Smith they get tongue tied and immediately leave. After of course calling me an evil Apostate. Believe me I know. Since you are calling me a mormon basher for merely showing you your church's own doctrine in their own writings guess I'll call you an Apostate basher. :) And no I'm not steeped in anti-mormon thought, I'm steeped in the writings of mormons themselves thank you. That's the great thing about the LDS, you can prove their error by using their own literature!

As far as this being a political forum blame Mitt Romney. He should never have attempted to deceive the population by trying to cover up his own church's doctrine. Better get your seat belt fastened! If Mitt wins the nomination Hillary has just begun to dig up this topic!!

[muawiyah]

Not all Christians agree on the correct wording for the Nicene Creed. Many otherwise quite orthodox and traditional Christian bodies reject its use as "authoritative" since it does not meet the standard of "sola scriptura".

I know it's a surprise to many Christians to encounter folks who reject the Nicene Creed or simply ignore it as relevant to Christianity.

Mormons supposedly reject it as having meaning in Christian worship although it's probably more like they ignore it.

Jews ignore it too. Moslems have several standard sermons repeated several times a year in mosques throughout the world where the Imam (or teacher) argues with the Nicene Creed like there's no tomorrow.

[Old Mountain man]

You omit the choice that God has allowed us free will and that Joseph Smith was foully murdered by mainstreamers who had that free will.

Did you ever consider that?

[conservativegramma]

You omit the choice that God has allowed us free will and that Joseph Smith was foully murdered by mainstreamers who had that free will.

What does free will have to do with a man claiming to speak in the Name of the Lord and what he spoke not happening???? Unless its the free will of said man to deceive people so that he may create a new and false religious system and end up being worshipped as a god -- which is what happened. As to being 'foully murdered by mainstreamers' don't make me bring up all the documentation of Brigham Young's murder of 'mainstreamers' in a wagon train going west collectively known as "The Mountain Meadows Massacre."

[Old Mountain man]

There is NO documentation other than more bloviating that Brigham Young ever killed anyone and you should know that. Can’t you do anything but bloviate? Give it up, you aren’t very good at it!

[Scotswife]

“Mitt himself made this an issue by trying to equate the Mormon Christ with the traditional Christ which all mormons (including you) have rejected. I believe that’s the exact point where it becomes a charade. And that is an insult to mainstream Christians whether you like it or not, and that is where Mitt Romney made his campaign an issue of theology. Big mistake.”

Yes...with all this talk of Huckabee, people are forgetting that Mitt just brought religion into the debate by making that speech using christian-sounding words in an attempt to gain christian votes.
It would have been better if he had avoided the entire subject, and then we probably would not have seen this Huckabee affair unfold.

[conservativegramma]

There is NO documentation....

You had to do that didn't you? You had to make me bring this up (sigh). Maybe you should watch the movie I believe titled "September Dawn".

"A California-bound wagon train of about 140 Arkansas emigrants led by John Baker and Alexander Fancher camped near the present-day southwestern Utah town of Enterprise in September 1857. Fears that the U.S. Army was preparing to forcefully remove Brigham Young as Utah territorial governor and impose martial law were at their height. Spurred by inflammatory sermons of LDS leaders, a siege mentality focused Mormon resentment on the 'gentile' wagon train.

Early on Sept. 7, a group of American Indians and local Mormon 'Indian missionaries' attacked the encircled wagon train without warning. ... With their ammunition, food and water almost gone, the emigrants were persuaded by Mormon officials on the afternoon of Sept. 11 to surrender their arms in exchange for a safe escort past the Indians to Cedar City. ... On a pre-arranged command, the rescuers turned upon the emigrants, joined by Indians who had been lying in wait. Estimates of the death toll include 14 Arkansas men shot in the head, 12 women and 35 youngsters clubbed or knifed to death, with 17 children younger than age 8 surviving the double-cross.

Nine cowhands hired to drive cattle also were murdered, along with at least 35 other unknown victims. In all, 120 people, mostly women and children, were slain." (Salt Lake Tribune, March 14, 2000, p. A-4)

I am forced to conclude that you are woefully ignorant of many cover-ups of the Mormon Church. Here's a book suggestion (absolutely replete with documentation that you need) that will help you out on this subject:

Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows (Paperback) by historian Will Bagley available at Amazon.com - http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Prophets-Brigham-Massacre-Mountain/dp/0806136391/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1? ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197516542&sr=8-1.

Another one entitled The Mountain Meadows Massacre by Juanita Brooks is also available - you can get the complete set! On the other hand if you are too brainwashed to pay money in the interest of truth there is always this website which discusses it absolutely free: http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/mmm_familysecrets.htm

[PetroniusMaximus]

"I have always enjoyed your posts (that I remember, I would appreciate your response to a section o­n my page about this specific question. I do not wish to debate your beliefs with you (I don't attack, just explain), just to see if you find my response logical or not."

Thank you. I would be glad to discuss these topics with you.

I think you've pretty well nailed down the core issue of substance - i.e., to put is bluntly,  is Jesus made of "God-stuff" or "Creature-stuff".

But let me ask you a question. As a Mormon, isn't this really a rather moot point with you? Being that the God of Mormon theology, if I understand things correctly, was o­nce made of "creature-stuff" also?

So, in essence, the questions becomes a much larger o­ne. It's not just a matter of whether or not Jesus is uniquely Divine in nature, but also where God Almighty is uniquely Divine in nature - or whether He is just a part of the whole, vast creation that "became" Divine.

The Christian and Jewish conception of God is that He, (Christians would define as the three distinct Persons of the Trinity - God, Son and Spirit,)  has neither beginning, nor end. And that He is eternally unchangeable in His nature - eternally Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent. And that He uniquely and eternally set apart from and different than creation - that He is, in the final analysis, completely alien in nature from all created things or beings.

Is this what the Scriptures teach about God? In my mind, yes, unquestionably and without a doubt. I would be glad to point you to some passages if you are interested.


" This o­neness shared by God and Jesus was described by Jesus Christ himself and recorded in o­ne of the most beautiful chapters"

I think this is a problem with your argument. The concept of the relationship (i.e. o­neness) between God and Christ is partially described in that passage - but not totally defined. For that you must look at many other passages in both Testaments. For example, in the passage from John, the Christian is called to participate in the life of God via regeneration ("that they may be o­ne, even as we are o­ne") but they are never described as being present with God and taking an active and ubiquitous role in creation as Jesus does in John 1. 


"I could go o­n with many problems with God and Christ being of the same substance, but I will merely describe a few, and link to the Scriptures for brevity..."

The passages cited, as far as I can tell, do not present a problem to Christians. We believe in o­ne God, three distinct Persons. I.e., the Father, Son and Spirit are o­ne - but the Son is not the Father and the Spirit is not the Son.

"I will not argue that there is no basis for believing that God the father and Christ have the same substance, for I am not trying to dissuade anyone from their beliefs. However, anyone who says that our position has no basis in the scriptures is ignorant of what is in them, or is hoping that you are."

I'm sorry - I don't follow you here. How would you say the above verses provide a Scriptural basis for Mormon beliefs?

And, as an aside, how do you believe John 9 shows preexistence - as you reference in your last paragraph?

Than you again, and I look forward to your comments. (And please forgive my overly long post.)

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

That was not my subject. You asked me to address the Nicene Creed and I did.

[conservativegramma]

Uh, no I didn’t. That was post #308 by Muayiwah.

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

You know what. Just go study your anti mormon stuff and give it a rest. I am sure with a little more study you can come back more invigorated with some fresh bash material. I really don’t spend my life on anti-mormon stuff and where they dig it up. I have a nice family and lots of friends. If I know something about your material I will be happy to respond. I was happy to respond to your charade charges with actual doctrine. Beyond that, I have six kids to raise.

[Old Mountain man]

That’s nice. I said evidence, not opinion.

[conservativegramma]

Its not responding with 'actual doctrine' that's the problem here, its the attempt to 'cover-up' actual doctrine because its too embarrasing for you. BTW: The anti-mormon stuff comes from the LDS itself, its 'dug up' from the vaults in Salt Lake City. If you have a problem with the 'anti-mormon' stuff you have a problem with the LDS itself. You just want to bash me because you are too afraid to question THEM.

Too bad Romney isn't capable of responding with actual doctrine instead of trying to cover up his actual doctrine and thus present himself as a mainstream Christian for votes -- THAT was the point here which went over your head.............

[conservativegramma]

I said evidence, not opinion.

Gee, its nice to learn that historical research that has been published by a historian is not 'opinion'.