Evangelicals Against Mitt

The American Spectator ^ | 1/3/2008 | Carrie Sheffield

[tantiboh]

Mitt Romney is facing an unexpected challenge in Iowa from rival Mike Huckabee, who has enjoyed a groundswell of support from religious voters, particularly evangelical Christians wary of the clean-cut former Massachusetts governor because of his Mormon religion.

The common worry among evangelicals is that if Romney were to capture the White House, his presidency would give legitimacy to a religion they believe is a cult. Since the LDS church places heavy emphasis on proselytizing -- there are 53,000 LDS missionaries worldwide -- many mainstream Christians are afraid that Mormon recruiting efforts would increase and that LDS membership rolls would swell.

...

THE ONLY PROBLEM with those fears is that they don't add up. Evangelicals may be surprised to learn that the growth of church membership in Massachusetts slowed substantially during Romney's tenure as governor. In fact, one could make the absurdly simplistic argument that Romney was bad for Mormonism.

...

ONE WAY TO GAUGE what might happen under a President Romney would be to look at what happened during the period of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. Held in Salt Lake City, they were dubbed the "Mormon Olympics."

...

Despite all the increased attention, worldwide the Church grew only slightly, and in fact in the year leading up to the games the total number of congregations fell. Overall, from 2000 to 2004, there was a 10.9 percent increase in memberships and a 3.6 percent increase in congregations.

...

The LDS church is likely to continue its current modest-but-impressive growth whether or not Romney wins the White House. Perhaps the only real worry for evangelicals is that, if elected, the former Massachusetts governor will demonstrate to Americans that Mormons don't have horns.

Carrie Sheffield, a member of the LDS Church, is a writer living in Washington, D.C.

[Godzilla]

If Satan can indeed answer a prayer to go, in God's stead:

This circular reasoning again, here's what the bible says (again):

He can appear as an angel of light. 2 Cor 11:14 (see also D&C 128:20, 129:8)
He will seem to be like God. 2 Thess 2:4
He will not be exposed as the devil until the end of time. 2 Thess 2:8
His followers will seem (and claim) to be apostles of Christ. 2 Cor 11:13-14, Matt 24:4-5, 24:23-26, Mark 13:21-22
His followers will be able to do miracles and wonders. Matt 24:24, Mark 13:22
He will tempt with the promise of dominion and power. Matt 4:8-9, Luke 4:5-7
He will be able to deceive even the "elect" (i.e., the righteous and the saved). Matt 24:24, Mark 13:22
He (and his followers?) believe that they will be like God. Isaiah 14:13-14
The devil's followers are whoever sins (the righteous - the followers of God - do not sin). 1 John 3:6-9
Feelings are the imaginations of the heart (and are deceptive; thus they may come from Satan) Jer 17:9 (also 3:17, 7:24, 9:14, 11:8, 16:12)
Every man thinks that he is right (implicitly, this includes even those who are deceived; thus, even though you may think you are right, you may still be deceived). Prov 21:2
Those who think they are standing (i.e. correct) will fall. 1 Cor 10:12
The devil's false prophets lie; true prophets of God do not. Deut 13:1-3, 18:20-22, Isa 9:15, Jer 5:31, 14:14, 1 John 2:21, many other passages
But sometimes the devil will tell a truth (Mark 1:24, Luke 4:33-34, 41, Gen 2:4-5)

Joseph Smith also taught that sometimes false angels and false revelations from Satan are difficult to recognize as false. He gave as one test the hair color of an angel - if it is sandy-colored, the angel is not from God (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 214). Another test is comparing the message of the supposed angel to previous revelations: if it contradicts previous revelation, it is from Satan (ibid.).

[DelphiUser]

I Said A Because it's long and I am trying to cut down the Size of my posts.

U Said HA Ha ha!

I Said, I was trying, not succeeding. I Said Click the mouse button a few times, it won't hurt you.

U Said No thanks; the jury will note that the opposing counsel is lazy and does not want to defend what he has claimed.

Speaking of Lazy...

I went and Got the Links, did the research and just didn't post the text for you. and you are calling me lazy? This is a case of the Pot calling the Coffee cup black... (Trying to think of a dish that shouldn't be black).

Just to show what a great Guy I am, I will post the link again. The Richness of First Nephi in the Book of Mormon: Further Reading Lurkers, This site (which is too hard for Elsie to click on) lists the route from Jerusalem, estimated travel distances (by number of days traveled) and where you end up. They find a historical burial ground that matches the location of Naholm, in the Book of Mormon and has a similar name (Only consonants are written, in Arabic or Hebrew) so, NHM could be written as Naholm in english, moreover, it is directly west from a place that is unusual in the area because a Wadi runs all year to it, it has trees and lush vegetation described by Nephi, and has all the evidence of having been that way for centuries. The Wadi that feeds it runs through a steep sided canyon which has to be traversed to get there, or you would have to arrive from the sea. (Which explains why no one has been using it, besides it's out of the way). All this exactly matches the route description in the Book of Mormon.

There is a lot more, but I'm not going to synopsize for you, if you want to be ignorant, don't click.

Now for the important piece, THIS DOES NOT PROVE THE bOOK OF MORMON TO BE TRUE. This is interesting circumstantial evidence just like much of the "Evidence" anti's try to use to prove the Book of Mormon false. There is only one way to know for sure. Get a Book of Mormon read it, Pray about it, as told to do in the Bible in:

First John 4:1-3

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

The Bible tells believers to "Try the spirits" to see if they are of God, and tells people how to know if the testimony they receive is of God.

I have taken the Bible at it's word and read and prayed about the Book of Mormon. I received an answer, the answer contained a testimony of the Book of Mormon, and a testimony of Jesus Christ personally coming to this earth, and suffering for my sins. Thus I declare that the message was of God for it meets up with the requirements in the Bible.

It's that simple, I bear testimony, Anti's ask questions and ridicule, they do not testify of Jesus, therefore they are not his.

[DelphiUser]

Yet another failure by the defense to show proof.

The old "guilty until proven innocent" attack eh?

What country are you from, and is it's government socialist in nature?

[DelphiUser]

U Quoted out of Context: So if the plates existed, they used the more physically compact writing.

U Said: There are no plates, so you are trying to present something that isn't verifiable as fact - assuming that the bom is real. Circular logic at its best.

It's interesting that I can say If you are asserting "X" then ... you will Quote "X" as my position. This explains a lot about your understanding of the scriptures In My post # 1920, I said

The book of Mormon states that they used Egyptian because it was smaller than Hebrew and the plates were hard to write upon (being metal), so either their were characters, and Joseph translated them, so they are the smaller characters, or there were no plates and Joseph made the whole thing up (which is what you keep saying), which is it?

So if the plates existed, they used the more physically compact writing.

It's called Logic, you might want to learn how to use it some time...

If you actually read my post, I am pointing out that the position that "the plates don't exist" and the "they were written with verbose script" are inconsistent arguments for the same person to be making. Instead you try to claim it is my assertion, not the one I am responding to.

This is pathetic, really, it's beneath you, or I thought it was.

[Godzilla]

So, Like I said, Mormons do not believe that God had sex with Mary.

They sure have taught it:

Bruce R. McConkie
"These name-titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only; Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers" (Mormon Doctrine, 546-47; emphasis added).
"There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the Son of God, and that designation means what it says "(Mormon Doctrine,742;emphasis added).

This is, the official doctrine of the Mormon Church. I use the term "official doctrine" because every LDS General Authority that has addressed the subject has consistently taught it. In point of fact, this doctrine has never been denied by any General Authority of the LDS Church! Oh, and McConkie was a General Authority at this time.

[MHGinTN]

The more you post, the more effluent comes spittling out to defend your peepstone divination liar who proclaimed himself a prophet and tried to rewrite the Bible to fabricate prophecy of 'his coming in these latter days':

Your problem seems to be that you believe Satan can keep God from answering prayers ..." Delphi User
If that is the extent of your reasoning capacity and you represent mormonism, May God help Mormons to see the demons directing them! Actually, that is more your deviousness in trying to stand up a strawman to shoot at, but the blasphemy you spittle so casually seems to evade your attention since you just handle it to sling it at someone else. We've addressed your devilish effort to fabricate that fractured syllogism about god's impotence if satan can answer the prayers of those tempting God, before. Need we expose you again?

[LeGrande]

I seriously doubt that evangelism is the motivation anyway I think its just a venting outlet.

I agree. I also think that it creates a sense of purpose in their lives to create an enemy. Many people are happiest when they are fighting. They are like the bully's on the playground and just like the bully's they are always stunned and terrified when someone fights back : )

[DelphiUser]

A few points...

1. There are many tests to know if a messenger is of God.
2. Messengers from Satan can not apear as an answer to a prayer of Faith, they can just appear however.
3. Satan is revealed often as the Devil. (your end of time 2 Thes is about the antichrist)

I do find it interesting that you qote 2 thes. 2 Thessalonians 2:3

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Which says pretty clearly that there will be a falling away from the truth... And that this falling away will reveal the "Man of Sin". Later, in : 2 Thessalonians 2:8

4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might e brevealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

I hope everyone can clearly see that there will be a falling away. this falling away will eventually be revealed as the work of the antichrist in the last day (so it's not that Satan will only be revealed in the last day, that's a misinterpretation of the scriptures from taking them out of context.)

I submit that if you try hard enough you can make the Bible say anything by taking scriptures out of context and applying interpretations to them.

[MHGinTN]

Holy Mackerel, something we agree upon!...

"I submit that if you try hard enough you can make the Bible say anything by taking scriptures out of context and applying interpretations to them." DU, now that you are awakened to that reality, how about applying the thinking to scrutinize the specious use of 1 Cor 15 in teaching baptism for the dead?

[Godzilla]

Your argument was founded on the existance of the plates as the origin of the bom. Without those plates, all else is idle speculation and not evidence. Or perhaps we do have some "evidence". Smith reportedly made a copy of the 'text' found on the plates, and had it reviewed by a local expert - Professor Charles Anthon. The RLDS holds the copy which was handed down to them from David Whitmer. Anthon refuted the notion that the characters were Egyptian in origin.

[DelphiUser]

I Said: So, Like I said, Mormons do not believe that God had sex with Mary.

U Said: They sure have taught it:

They have never taught that Mary was anything but a virgin. They have stressed that God is Jesus' father in every way. You are interpreting their words.

U Quoted:

Bruce R. McConkie

"These name-titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only; Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers" (Mormon Doctrine, 546-47; emphasis added). "There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the Son of God, and that designation means what it says "(Mormon Doctrine,742;emphasis added).

I can tell you with surety that This is not what Bruce R McConkie meant, He did not mean sex.

"Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father. Mary, his mother, "was carried away in the Spirit" (1 Ne. 11:13-21), was "overshadowed" by the Holy Ghost, and the conception which took place "by the power of the Holy Ghost" resulted in the bringing forth of the literal and personal Son of God the Father. (Alma 7:10; 2 Ne. 17:14; Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38.) Christ is not the Son of the Holy Ghost, but of the Father. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 18-20.) Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false. (Elder Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.822, emphasis added)

So, Bruce R McConkie in the same book, 80 pages later when talking about the Virgin birth makes sure everyone knows he is not saying God had sex with Mary.

You are incorrect, again.

U Said: This is, the official doctrine of the Mormon Church. I use the term "official doctrine" because every LDS General Authority that has addressed the subject has consistently taught it. In point of fact, this doctrine has never been denied by any General Authority of the LDS Church! Oh, and McConkie was a General Authority at this time.

This is a complete lie. Every general authority of the church has testified of the Virgin birth. Let me explain this to you, you are only a virgin until you have sex, then you are not a virgin, therefore if you believe and testify of the Virgin birth in specificity, that precludes a belief in The Offensive blasphemous damnable heresy thrust upon us from Anti Mormons that God had Sex with Mary.

Let me try an authority you may actually respect.

CC, can you confirm or deny LDS belief in the Virgin birth? Thank you in advance, and sorry to bother you. Your unique status as a someone widely known to be an Ex-mormon may be useful here to rectify this long running misunderstanding by some of the other antis.

LeGrande, you too, have a reputation as an ex who is not afraid to call us on things we get wrong about our own beliefs here. What is the Mormons belief concerning the Virgin birth, do we believe it or not?

For the proposes of this question, will both of you please note a Virgin birth precludes preempts and invalidates any kind of a belief that God the Father and Mary had sex.

[Godzilla]

There are many tests to know if a messenger is of God.

Then I guess you agree with Smith's tests then huh.

Messengers from Satan can not apear as an answer to a prayer of Faith, they can just appear however.

Unless the object of one's faith is false to begin with.

Satan is revealed often as the Devil. (your end of time 2 Thes is about the antichrist)
I submit that if you try hard enough you can make the Bible say anything by taking scriptures out of context and applying interpretations to them.

Wow, only one scripture out of the batch you disagree with. But then your premise is that you are praying to the true god - but which one? You have so many.

[colorcountry]

My view of the teachings of Mormonism regarding the virgin birth, is that the LDS Church teaches that no one knows exactly how God caused the impregnation of Mary. Perhaps something like artificial insemination or implanting an embryo or something of that nature could be assumed as well as some other transmission between God and Mary, perhaps sexual in nature......

...but no one knows, this is all purely speculation.

[DelphiUser]

U Said: The more you post, the more effluent comes spittling out to defend your peepstone divination liar who proclaimed himself a prophet and tried to rewrite the Bible to fabricate prophecy of 'his coming in these latter days':

Joseph smith needs no defense from me, all I am trying to do is correct the misstatements that are made by anti Mormons made on these threads. While I am here, I continually testify of Jesus, and encourage others to gain a testimony as I have. If this is effluent, then may everyone understand the Crap you are posting, come unto Jesus, and testify of him too.

I Said: Your problem seems to be that you believe Satan can keep God from answering prayers ..."

U Said: If that is the extent of your reasoning capacity and you represent Mormonism, May God help Mormons to see the demons directing them!

This is what your side has to believe to believe that a prayer to God (which God has promised to answer in the Bible) will be answered by Satan instead.

U Said: Actually, that is more your deviousness in trying to stand up a strawman to shoot at, but the blasphemy you spittle so casually seems to evade your attention since you just handle it to sling it at someone else. We've addressed your devilish effort to fabricate that fractured syllogism about god's impotence if satan can answer the prayers of those tempting God, before. Need we expose you again?

In a word, yes.

Do you or do you not believe that Joseph smith was visited by Satan disguised as an angel of light? (I can post links to posts where you say exactly that, any body can who looks at your back posts....)

The points that Joseph was praying to God for an answer, and was specifically trying to find out which PROTESTANT church to join, not with standing, if Joseph was praying, then Satan answering the prayer means evry thing I said is true.

Expose again, it won't change the truth.

[Elsie]

My question is why do you waste your time attacking the Mormon faith?

Because it's false.

[Elsie]

To all of those disappointed “in your friggin’ face”.

Thank you very much!

[Godzilla]

They have stressed that God is Jesus' father in every way.

and the conception which took place "by the power of the Holy Ghost"

Christ is not the Son of the Holy Ghost, but of the Father.

First you have to make up your mind(s). Is it the product of God or the Holy Spirit? Your leadership authorities and teachings are sounding very confused. No wonder you are confused.

Bruce R. McConkie

Is sounding like a very confused, conflicted individual - and he was made an apostle? But then he was brought up in the following teachings:

It was the result of natural action, (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).
Jesus was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 51); (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, page 19).
"The Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it" (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, page 218, 1857.) The birth was the result of natural action, (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, p. 115).
"The Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit." (Religious Truths Defined, p. 44)

The Offensive blasphemous damnable heresy thrust upon us from Anti Mormons that God had Sex with Mary.

Sorry to break it to you, but the record doesn't lie. Your general authorities have taught and promoligated this teaching. Young, Pratt, Kimball and lots others are documented in their teaching of this. It is logical extension of mormon doctrine since "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's" (Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 130:22).

[Elsie]

God always answers, sometimes we aren't listening, sometimes we are so distant from him that we can't hear him, but is is us the have moved and need to move Back and God who always answers for he is unchanging and no respecter of persons.

 

Obviously; you haven't sat in on this guys class lately...

 

 

---

 

              Hear me!

 

Time:    Statement:

0:09    I've not had all my questions answered - the LORD hasn't chosen to do that...

0:11    HE probably hasn't answered all of yours...

[Elsie]

Circular logic at its best.

So?

We STILL manage to fool enough folks every year to grow our ranks!

--MormonDude(How much is YOUR 'church' growing?)

[Elsie]

The old "guilty until proven innocent" attack eh?

I think you need Tortdog and Lady Lawyer to give you lessons.

What was shown to you, and the jury, was the fact you didn't put any evidence on the table.

It's known as 'Innocent UNTIL proven GUILTY' in the trade.