Posted on 01/08/2008 4:09:13 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
You made a statement about Obama’s racist church. Please clarify. I think he’s an awful candidate and I’d be ashamed if I were in the “other” party - they could only come up with Hillary, Edwards and HIM? But, you need to back up what you say - that’s a strong statement.
“How about you make a time line of those historical events?”
How about you actually read the sources you are claiming as proof?
That ought to help.
I don’t have to make a historical timeline - experts have already done so - for anyone who wishes to read the early writings - there they are.
An excellent source I have already pointed out for you...
The Faith of the Early Fathers (W.A. Jurgens)
“I think you are skipping over those you don’t like.”
LOL!
Of course you do.
“You know the outcome, and you magically jump to the conclusion that it was always that way.”
So you are a mindreader now? You “know” how I arrive at conclusions?
It isn’t all that complicated.
Reading entire works - without cherry picking - within context of the historical events they deal with. That’s always helpful.
“When I post anything that is counter to your assertion that it was always that way, you accuse me of giving a false version of historical events”
I accuse you of giveing false version of historical events - PROBABLY because you give false version of historical events.
My favorite was your claim that Augustine was brokering deals at the Nicaea Council despite the unfortunate fact he had not been born yet.
“Post a list of events in order, giving the date, and a reference for where you find it, and what it means.”
Why don’t you buy some books and start going through the immense mountain of material yourself?
You are the one making false claims without citing sources, and making vague references to encyclopedia entries that do not support your positions.
“You don’t believe events as explained by “Mormons” yet you expect everyone to magically believe your version of events even though you have not provided references that say you are correct.”
I don’t “expect” you to believe anything.
You have made claims about links that didn’t turn out to be true.
Anyone who visits the catholic encyclopedia website will see what I am talking about.
“You provide me with links and then deny what it says when I post a copy of a passage found in that link”
No...I pointed out the passage you posted did not support your claims.
“It is very arrogant to give the answer “I don’t read it that way so what you are saying is false.””
That is not what is happening and you know it.
It is arrogant to post false information and not expect people to double check your facts.
You have been double checked, and your “facts” don’t pan out.
I have never said anything like that.
What I want to do is examine the sources and development of the doctrine of the Trinity as it is used by orthodox Christian Churches.
I know you would like to divert the discussion to what Joseph Smith said, but he wasn't alive when this took place.
For this purpose it irrelevant what he said or what I believe. I wasn't alive then either, I don't think you were either, so lets look at what those who were alive taught, and the development of the doctrine.
You claim a knowledge of historical events, so lets use your knowledge as a base. Not your knowledge of the trinity, but of the historical events you say I am misstating.
Then mormons must accept Dr. Seuss as inspired scripture too LOL. Your argument will only work if it was EXCLUSIVE. Since Smith, et al, copied so much from the Bible, the abundant Chiasmus there would have influenced their writings too, since they were trying to copy the style. Education isn't a prerequisite, as former slave Fredrick Douglas used chiasmus in some of his writings. Cicero, Shakespear, and Seneca, just to name a few also used it. Oh, and education in that era did emphasize the classical authors more than today. To further prod your short term memory, it was known in the early 1800s under a different term called parallelism. However, your chiasmus arguement ranks up there with a further non-proof regarding the authenticity of the bom.
Which time...
Show me proof other than hearsay that Anthon even provided an affidavit certifying the writing as authentic. But never mind, the original paper that was taken to Anthon exists - and wouldn't you know - has everything BUT option, let alone the forms you claimed were used.
Jesus was branded a liar by the Sanhedrin, yet you take his word, why?
Jesus' tomb is empty, Smith and the others have been worm food for a long time, just for starters.
No he's not around, Anti Mormons killed him thinking that if his work was of men, it would end with his death, well Mormons are still here, that's because it is a work of God.
Ah yessss, the 'ol lamb to the slaughter. Forget about the violence HE inspired by his Danites and the destruction of that nasty 'ol newspaper who dared challenge his teachings and running of the town (among other things). As far as a work of God, Christians are still around too (and a lot longer than mormons), Jehovah witnesses are still around, Christian Science folk, Buddhists, Hindus, shucks even flat earthers are still around - then mormonism must define them as 'works of god' too if they are going to be consistent.
OK, how about I provide a time line of historical events and give you the reference.
If you can refute the event I post, do it by references that are on the same event or subject and not just by saying that I am posting false information?
It will take some time to do it all on my own, and that is why I asked you to provide a starting time line.
I will post a large enough passage that you can see that I am not taking it out of context.
I really want to know about where the doctrine came from.
I will read the book Faith of Our Fathers to see what is there. When was it written?
God parted the Red Sea. Jesus changed water to wine and walked on water. This God is a God of miracles. He is about to demonstrate his great power in overthrowing the evil Gentiles in their bid to stop Mitt Romney from saving the Constitution. Elohim will rise up and smite the McCainites, the Clintonites, the Obamites and the Huckabites. His mighty arm will cut asunder the Gentile minions who believe they can stop His great work as Mitt and his Mittens overthrow those who even now are ready to tear the American Constitution into pieces. Watch the Mighty Power of God at work.
(Channeling Elsie’s Mormon Dude)
“It will take some time to do it all on my own, and that is why I asked you to provide a starting time line.”
The starting time line is the old and new testament.
The encyclopedia entry you claim to have read cites supportive passages.
The early christians always taught that 1)The Father is God, and )The Son is God, and 3)The Spirit is God.
We see it in the baptismal command which they clearly took to heart as shown in the Didache.
“I will read the book Faith of Our Fathers to see what is there. When was it written?”
The works themselves were written from the first century onward.
The book is a compilation of writings and was published in 1970 along with scholarly anaylysis of the writings.
The newadvent.com website has early writings, as well as ccel.org, and ewtn.com.
It is an interesting observation that changing water to wine was far more volatile a miracle than merely parting the Red Sea or stopping the Jordan River ... think about a couple of vats with no hydrocarbons in them, then suddenly they are filled with hydrocarbons and volatiles (alcohol)!
I was trying to toss you a bone to gratefully pull out of your embarrassing situation, oh well. No, we are talking about what the KEEPERS of mormon cannon, the 24/7 prophet and apostles of mormonism have taught and continue to teach. We are not talking individual churches in this context.
Hey, this thing was once said by a General authority of your church,
Yawn, this is not a 'once said', but a continual teaching over the entire course of mormonism (doesn't fit the definition of a fad DU).
Baptists Don't support the KKK even unofficially any more (it was never official)
Wow, provide a non-example as an example, then shoot your argument down, stop that you are taking my fun away from me. Then it never was DOCTRINE or CANNON was it (the fabric of DUs argument starts to unravel...)
My point is simple, you have a double standard, you think no assault can ever say something or offer an opinion without the whole church being held accountable, and most people will not agree with you.
You posted your claim in the original post. I disputed the claim because there is an abundance of evidence that your claim was false. I supplied that evidence to support, others said that they were familiar with that teaching first hand. Finally, in this instance, I was dealing with a singular organization - lds church and those who have endorsed and promulgated the teaching - which have not been refuted or withdrawn. Were I to apply your standard, I'd lump you in with RLDS and FLDS teachings too boot. That is not double standard, that is just the course of the discussion.
So the more you do it, the more crazy you look, we just look like victims (who is it that has that victim card?) I for one do not like looking like a victim, so cut it out, stop attacking us on unreasonable things there are plenty of reasonable things to attack us on, trust me.
Oh, the victim card has been played, ollie, ollie, oxen free. You claimed mormonism taught one thing, I proved that at the highest levels over its history it taught another and that is an attack. Wonder what you would REALLY do if attacked? But then in your stated opinion I'm just a scum sucking, pajama wearing serial poster with nothing better in life to do. So who is looking crazy, certainly not me.
Being an X-Cultist myself (Christian Science),
I’d rather speak to non believers than try to
argue with cultists. They MUST be correct or
else admit naivete. Can’t do that. No. Mustn’t
admit you’re stupid or gullible or lack common sense.
Realistically, we’re wired to make foolish choices.
That’s why we need God. Duh!
I’d like to see a show of hands. Who here has been
swindled by a credit card company, had their identity
stolen, fallen for the missing teenager scam or even
forwarded a voodoo email to 25 of your closest friends?
Even better ... has anyone sent a money order to Africa?
Yeah. I thought so.
LOL!
This - coming from someone claiming that Joseph Smith “restored” the teaching of Arius?
Wasn’t that you?
Have you ever read what the actual teaching of Arius was Delphi?
You might want to rethink that claim as Arius’s Father in no way resembles the mormon Father.
And while you attempt to take a swipe at Constantine, you fail to recognize that on more than one occasion - Constantine was in the corner of your hero.
Are you sure you want to make him out as the villian?
I get that idea tossed at me occasionally, it is wrong of course. I don't believe in a clockwork deterministic Universe. I actually believe that the universe is an affirmation of contradiction.
So for you, an Atheist, to try to raise a moral consideration against God is itself contradictory. You have to presume what you deny in order for your complaint to even be intelligible.
Nah, just check out the Prisoners Dilemma. It explains the natural development of Morals and Fairness :)
Well, the problem, per Hume, is that you cannot even justify your remaining entrenched belief in induction to make any sense out of your experience and reasoning.
While induction can't necessarily be used to prove or predict it can be used to falsify. Induction does falsify your belief in an omniscient GOD.
If you have solved Hume's problem, please let me know, as you would be the first.
The future can't be predicted. That statement is a contradiction. Do you know how it applies to Hume's Problem? : )
So, your demand for fairness itself is the first evidence that God has provided evidence that is so pervasive that cannot be avoided by anyone, including you.
The Prisoners dilemma shows that that assertion isn't true. Therefore by induction, it is proof that your God doesn't exist.
Your challenge is not tough at all. You can't even get it off the ground without contradicting your own premises.
Ahh the premises that you claimed I have. That is called a straw-man argument and you should know that it isn't valid. In fact the straw-man argument is dishonest, but I am sure you would know more about that than me : )
Elsie... I’ve read those facts about Joseph Smith’s death before. Can you please provide a link. I’ve got this file...
Thx... Jo
Identity theft?
I think that you might be surprised at how well informed I AM.
May God give you eyes to see and ears to hear.
Sadly what I saw was a bunch of meaningless references to Scriptures that have nothing to do with predictions of Christ.
My challenge was clear. All you needed to do was provide a single specific unambiguous prophecy that Christ fulfilled. You failed to provide that.
I suspect you know that it doesn't exist : )
Since dead prophets seem to be in the news...
The LDS Organization® always avoids the real history of Joseph Smith's assassination by teaching that he was killed because people didn't like his religious beliefs.
The reality is that few people in the mob even knew the Mormon beliefs and most could care less. Here are some of the contributing factors -- a far cry from the sanitized version the church promotes:
2. He organized a militia of almost 3,000 troops, the Nauvoo Legion. By comparison, the U.S. Army only had 8,500 soldiers at that time. Having a military force this large frightened the surrounding people.
3. Owning the court system protected the Mormons from the Gentiles. If a Mormon was charged with a crime, he often ran to the city court, got the case dismissed, then was free from double jeopardy.
4. There was some counterfeiting going on. In the area, it was called "Nauvoo bogus." No one could ever be charged. Bitter merchants and neighbors often got stuck.
5. There were rumors of the polygamy practices of the church leaders, although it was still publicly denied at this time. This was a minor factor however, since few knew about it.
6. Tales of the vigilante activities of the Danites terrorized non-Mormons of the area. Night riders burning barns of church enemies was not good PR, even though some of these activities may have been falsely blamed on the Mormons.
7. Smith's old enemy, Gov. Boggs of Missouri, was wounded and left for dead in a failed assassination attempt. Everyone knew it was Porter Rockwell, Smith's loyal bodyguard, acting on his orders.
8. Joseph Smith had taken advantage of the new federal bankruptcy law by placing over $100,000 of assets in Emma and the children's names, then declaring bankruptcy. This left his creditors high and dry, including the lienholdersof a steamboat JS had bought on credit and destroyed accidentally.
9. Smith had himself appointed trustee-in-trust for the church. This meant that in order to buy real estate in the Nauvoo area, one had to go through him. Many converts would plunk down their life savings for a few acres, then become disillusioned with the church. Smith and cohorts would "freeze them out", allowing no members to buy their properties, or either offer a token pittance to those who dared to leave the Mormon city. Several of the mob members were ex-Mormons who felt cheated out of their life savings.
10. Smith declared himself a candidate for the U.S. Presidency. Not that he had a chance of winning, but he could act as a third party "spoiler". Non-Mormons in the area could see right through this ploy, and could picture their votes being nullified.
11. A month before his death, JS made a famous speech, reported by the area newspapers, wherein he declared "he had more to boast about than Jesus Christ." The area's reaction was, "what a pompous, blasphemous jerk this Mormon leader is"!
12. The final straw, the ordering of the destruction of the Expositor for exposing the true Joseph Smith to the world, was merely the spark his enemies needed -- violating the freedom of the press.
13. In declaring martial law to resist state troops enforcing his arrest, this constituted treason and in many eyes was an attempt to place himself above the law.
For references, all of the above items can be found in the History of the Church, the diaries of the Apostles, Quinn's "Mormon Hierarchy, Origins of Power", and in a more sanitized version, Dallin Oaks' book, "Carthage Conspiracy."
Nothing here should be construed as justification for the murder.
Mob violence is a terrible thing and should never be condoned.
This is merely to show that the church's omission of the historical facts behind the act serves as a ruse to create a sense of martyrdom and deceitfully misleads the members.
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.