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 ...
Better material? HAH! The whole idea for this exercise from Mormonism Apologists is to sow doubt and create as much confusion as their directing spirit can exploit in the unwary. They think they are about God’s work, pushing the fabrications fed through an adulterous peepstone divination false prophet. Amazing don’tchaknow!
Actually; you do.
The Bible does NOT say the same thing.
YOU have 'quoted out of context.
" 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; "
“Of course Smith practiced polygamy. That’s beyond doubt.
“What is unsubstantiated is the assumption that he engaged in physical relations with all of them.
What people will do is most often what their history shows
they did.
He bonked them all, if history is any guide. As did his
successor.
~”He bonked them all, if history is any guide.”~
For that, AMPU, you’d better provide evidence, rather than baseless accusation. Right alongside all the documentation dredged up by our detractors to show that Smith had X number of wives is evidence that many of those wives were merely dynastic.
Here’s the crux of the matter: I think Joseph Smith was a prophet who followed the commands of the Lord. Therefore, I think that he was commanded to marry and care for those women. You do not agree on either point. Neither of us is going to convince the other. And I will certainly not condemn Smith for taking actions that I believe were commanded him of the Lord. Some will, no doubt, call this blindness. Fine, they can think that. I an anchored to the testimony to my soul by the Holy Spirit that he was Christ’s servant and the Lord’s prophet. It is folly for anyone to think that mere words can sway me from that bedrock.
LOL 50 years after the fact is not contemporaneous :)
All it takes is one positive test result : ) And the 4 still being processed have had years to complete it, haven't they?
With over 33 wives there should be thousands of little Josephs running around by now. Lets assume that he only impregnated half of his wives, lets say 16 for giggles. And lets assume that they only had 2 children each, every twenty years, admittedly a low number (Mormons tend to have big families) but lets be conservative. That is effectively 8 doublings or over 2000 descendant's.
Where are the positive DNA test results?
The real truth is that from all of those marriages there isn't a single person (other than from Emma of course) who has tested positive for being a descendant of Joseph Smith.
That is correct and it makes MHGinTN's quote incorrect.
How many errors does it take to make an author suspect?
That isn't my claim. There were many Proxy and 'Spiritual' marriages to Joseph Smith. My claim is that there is no contemporaneous evidence that Joseph Smith was polygamous. I am simply asking you to prove your claim that he was, with contemporaneous evidence, or with DNA which you originally claimed you could do.
Littleman grand hasn’t bothered to apply post #2703 where his ‘error’ is explained a second time. His game is to pretend he has not been shown the correct quote so he can continue to play at the strawman he fabricated. It must be his Mormon training showing through ... if you’re making a fool of yourself, like he is, pretend everyone else is in error and just ignore any proof to the contrary. But he claims to be an atheist, so he’s dishonest anyway. Just try to ignore the littleman. His insutling posts are more a revelation of his smallness than anything else.
Because your post was so large I'm spliting it into two posts, just to keep you happy (isn't that nice of me)>
To greatly abbreviate and eliminate the redundancy of DU's posts I will summarize them below because my answers were presented in greater detail in my previous post and there is no real need to repeat them again.
1. Asserts 1 Enoch was a complete book at the time of Christ and is the source of the 'Son of Man' references in the Gospels
I reminded him that it not been proven by archaeology or bibligraphic scholarship to be that way, but the components of the book were in stand alone configuration at DSS. DSS had no evidence of the Similitudes, which do not show up until the 14th century in Ethiopia.
2. Asserts 1 Enoch predates the Book of Daniel and that Daniel relies upon Enoch for its son of man references.
I pointed out that current scholarship does not date any portion of Enoch before Daniel. Furthermore, internal evaluation of Enoch indicates it drew upon Daniel and Isaiah instead of the reverse.
3. Asserts that Enoch was actually written by Enoch of Genesis, in spite of the fact he agrees that the writing was a compilation.
In my previous post I made clear that pseudepigrapha were written by someone who assumed the name of a famous biblical figure. There are a number of writings that fall into that category that were written between 200 BC and 200 AD. Such an assertion by Du is laughable and poor scholarship.
4. Repeatedly du claims that the complete book of Enoch was present during the time of Christ.
Du fails to realize that the 'son of man' references are found in the portion of 1 Enoch known as the "Similitudes". There is no evidence that the Similitudes were present at the time of Christ. The earliest copy of the Similitudes are associated with the 14th century Ethiopian MS
5. du falls back into a fallacious argument that 1Enoch is one of the scriptures left out of the bible.
That claim is not supported by your general authorities who have yet to canonize it - simple solution. Second fallacy is that all non- canonical documents cited in the scriptures are in fact scripture. Incorrect once again, they cited other documents and writings when making their points. Has mormonism canonized Phaenomena by the poet Aratus? How about Cretan poet Epimenides? Did not think so. That means that everything that may have been quoted is not necessarily scripture.
6. Instead of Jesus relying upon Daniel for the 'son of man' quotes, du continues to insist an Enochical source.
I remind du that it is more likely that Similitudes (which du has significant trouble keeping separate in this post) was influenced by Christian teaching as well as Daniel.
7. Finally, du tries to raise Occam's razor argument to support his theory - namely that Enoch predates Daniel, Jesus cites Enoch (Similitudes), Enoch is scripture that was denied from the canon.
I pose a better theory that actually fits the facts - Daniel predates Enoch, the form of Enoch during the time of Christ was similar to what was found with the DSS - separate stories/books, Similitudes was not written at the time of Christ but was written late 1st century at earliest and that Jesus cites Daniel (and to an extent Isaiah) in regards to the 'son of man' usage and not a non-existent Similitudes.
Du's post is full of hypothetical, logic defying conclusions that are falsified by current biblographic study and archaeological evidence of the Book of Enoch (aka 1 Enoch - Ethiopian version). The first thing you should do when digging yourself into a hole is stop digging DU.
Are you prepared to defend that.
Elsie (Elton) - I’m prepared to SEE it.
Are you ready to point me to it?
LG - Here is the quote from Running Women.
“To believe Smith was not joining physically to these ‘wives’ is to stretch credulity. Some of the ‘wives’ husbands were outraged and one , two, or more of these polyandrous ‘wives’ fled with Mormon wagon trains heading West.”
Are you prepared to defend that statement? Do you even know why it is ludicrous?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Who’s pooping in the sandbox now ???
The early Church believed in a Physically separate God and Jesus and the oneness spoken of by Jesus was the same oneness God said Adam and Eve were to have, Which is the same oneness Jesus gave many parables about him and the Church as bride and groom,
Here du ignores the 90% of the encyclopedic reference on the Trinity.
which was the same oneness Jesus spoke of in: John 17:22 when he said:
Contexturally, Jesus is calling for a different kind of unity here. Again the doctrine of the Trinity does not rest or fall on this verse when it is taken outside its context. In John 1:1 “1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (KJV).
en archi hn o logov prov ton yeon kai yeov hn o logov
Clear statement of the divine nature of Christ held in common with the triune God.
and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
And who is this person? Oh, right your anti-Catholic bigotry.
According tot he Bible, Try the Spirits as it says to do in the Bible, and read the Book of Mormon and PRay to God for knowledge, and it shall be given you.
The Bible also warns us to be on guard for false prophets and false teachers. Jesus said in Matthew 7:15, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” He also said in Matthew 24:11 “And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.” He went to say, “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect” (Matthew 24:24.) How then, are we to recognize false prophets? Deuteronomy 18:22 says, “When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.” We are instructed to be diligent about searching out false teachings.
Nowhere does the Bible ever direct the believing Christian to take any religious book and pray about the truthfulness of its contents. The standard to test anyoneÂ’s religious claims, even of the apostles, was always the Bible. God commends them! Paul COMMENDED the Bereans in Acts 17:11-12 when they questioned what he was teaching. Why? Because they went to the Bible that claims to be the word of truth to find whether what Paul spoke was true.
The final question is whether we can believe the bom and the only way to evaluate that is to look at the individual that created it. We have looked at the First Vision and whether or not that was a satanic impersonation, but that invokes an assumption that the vision ACTUALLY HAPPENED. As mormon leaders have repeatedly said mormonism hinges on this. So before one can evaluate the bom, this first question must be answered – did Smith even have a vision?
There are 3 primary first vision stories.
1. The published official 1842 version occurring in the woods in 1820 during a revival and encountering Jesus and God.
2. Another published account by Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the LDS periodical Messenger and Advocate, Kirtland, Ohio, Dec. 1834, vol.1, no.3. This account has the vision occurring in 1823, in his bedroom, with an angel visiting him. A revival stirred in him a desire to “know for himself of the certainty and reality of pure and holy religion.” Desired to know if a Supreme being did exist, and wanted manifestation that his sins were forgiven. Age 17 (1823) He was in his bedroom Vision of an angel Told sins were forgiven and Lord would do a work through him Told about gold plates and their location
3. Earliest known attempt at an ‘official’ recounting of the ‘First Vision, from History, 1832, Joseph Smith Letterbook 1, pp.2,3, in the handwriting of Joseph Smith (See An American Prophet’s Record, edited by Scott Faulring, Signature Books, 1989, p.5; The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, compiled by Dean Jessee, Deseret Book, 1984, pp. 5-6; Early Mormon Documents, vol.1, compiled by Dan Vogel, Signature Books, 1996, pp. 26-31)
Smith started serious study of the scriptures at age 12. Felt convicted of sins. Determined all churches were wrong. No mention of a revival. Omits money-digging context. Age 15 (in his 16th year). Location not clear. Vision of the Savior – Jesus Christ (has a “Christian experience”). Told his sins were forgiven. Fell back into transgression. At age 17 he again prayed and an angel appeared telling him about the plates and announced again he was forgiven of his sins.
The presence of such wide ranging accounts of this life shaking experience raises a lot of questions because they are so dramatically different. And this doe not even include later presidents who taught about the first vision. Key questions to be answered are:
1. Why didn't Joseph Smith write the "official" version of the First Vision?
In fact, the Joseph Smith History in the Pearl of Great Price was written by a scribe, James Mulholland, and went unpublished for years.
2. If the official First Vision story was so important, why did it go unpublished until 1842?
Smith supposedly had his vision in 1820. Yet it took over seven private revisions and another 22 years to have it first published.
3. If Joseph Smith saw God in 1820, why did he pray in his room in 1823 to find out "if a Supreme being did exist?"
4. Why did Joseph Smith fail to mention his First Vision when he first wrote a church history in 1835?
5. If it really happened, why couldn't Joseph Smith tell a consistent story about such a powerful experience as meeting with God and Jesus Christ face-to-face?
Furthermore, what kind of character did Smith have. It is documented that he was a swindler, treasure hunting with a peep stone. He practiced polygamy (and polyandry) all the while preaching against it and violating the bom commandments.
The man claimed to be a prophet of the lord, yet his prophecies continually failed as evidenced by the following :
Prophecy # 1 — The Coming of the Lord
(History of the Church, Vol. 2, page 182). This prophecy was spoken by Joseph Smith in 1835, and recorded by Oliver Cowdery. The fifty-six years were passed by 1891.
Prophecy # 2 — David W. Patten to go on a mission
(Doctrine & Covenants 114:1) This prophecy was made on April 17, 1838. David W. Patten died in October of 1838 and thus never went on a mission the following spring.
Prophecy # 3 — The United States Government
to be overthrown in a few years
(History of the Church, Vol. 5, page 394). Joseph Smith made this prophecy in May 6, 1843. However, the United States Government did not redress any of the wrongs committed against the Mormons in Missouri, and now over 150 years later, the U.S. Government still stands.
Prophecy # 4 — Congress to be broken up as a government
(Millennial Star, Vol. 22, p. 455. See also History of the Church (HC), vol. 6, p. 116,) The petition was not heard nor was protection granted (Deseret News, Vol. 1, p. 59).
Prophecy #5 —Finding Treasure in Salem, Massachusetts
This prophecy is recorded in Doctrine & Covenants Section 111. The introduction to this prophecy, found at the beginning of Section 111. No treasure was ever discovered, nor did Salem ever fell into the hands of the Mormons. Prophecy #6 — Pestilence, Hail, Famine & Earthquake
to Destroy the Wicked
(History of the Church, Vol. 1, pp. 315-316). Such a widespread destruction of the wicked of that generation never occurred.
Prophecy # 7 — Temple to be Built in Zion, Missouri This prophecy comes directly from Doctrine & Covenants Section 84, the introduction of which states: Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, September 22 and 23, 1832. HC 1:286-295. The Mormons were forced to flee Missouri due to persecution and a temple was never built on the "temple lot" in the lifetime of Joseph Smith or within the generation of his contemporaries.
So, we are to trust a non-Biblical document as an equal to the Bible who came from an individual that most likely came up with the vision story as an additional conn job. This matches his documented character as a swindler and a liar (polygamy). With this short list of failed prophecies, Joseph Smith is branded as a false prophet too.
Do you want a false Jesus or do you want the real thing? Do you want to trust such an individual as Smith and the writing he claimed to be inspiried by god, or the Bible and the testimony of Christians throughout the ages who stood for Christ in the face of prosecution and death. “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6), not Joe Smith.
http://followchrist.ag.org/decision.cfm
You talkin' 'bout the BIBLE again?
Actually I was talking about the anti Mormon Books like Brodies, No man knows my history. I do find it interesting that the Bible popped immediately into your mind when I mentioned false and misleading claims by an author : )
Here is the quote.
"To believe Smith was not joining physically to these ‘wives’ is to stretch credulity. Some of the ‘wives’ husbands were outraged and one , two, or more of these polyandrous ‘wives’ fled with Mormon wagon trains heading West."
Are you prepared to defend that quote colorcountry?
I’ve become quite disenchanted by Evangelical Christianity lately. It has nothing to do with the presidential race, but the way some Evangelicals react to Romney further solidifies my views. I know a lot of FReepers here consider themselves Evangelicals, so I don’t want to start a fight. I just say to say this to anyone who’d call themselves an “Evangelical Aginst Mitt:” I am not a huge fan of Mormonism either, but if religion is your primary reason for not voting for Mitt Romney, you are a bigot and a fool.
Uh. I’m one of those ‘bigoted evangelicals’ you dweebs keep making specious comments about. If you do a bit of research you will find that most of us will end up voting for Romney while continuing to oppose the heresies in Mormonism. If you don’t believe there are heresies in Mormonism then why even post to a Mormonism discussion thread? [There is a spellcheck with FreeRepublic posting windows. If you want to make a better impression for your candidate, use it.
~”If you do a bit of research you will find that most of us will end up voting for Romney while continuing to oppose the heresies in Mormonism.”~
You are the exception, MHG. Most of the detractors of Mormonism have practically sworn on their firstborn that they would never vote for Mitt Romney. You are one of the few among them able to segregate your religion from your politics.
~”If you don’t believe there are heresies in Mormonism then why even post to a Mormonism discussion thread?”~
As you recall, this started as a political thread (vis a vis an attempt to debunk a reason that some refuse to support Romney’s candidacy), not a Mormonism thread. ZC is responding to that point, even if it is almost a month old. Like so many political threads that mention Romney, or even Mormonism within a political context, the discussion has degenerated into theological bashing. I’m not whining; I knew it would happen when I originally posted the article.
Thanks for your thoughts, ZC. I agree with your central point.
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.