Why is Huntsman’s Mormonism “Tough to Define”?

Religion Dispatches.com ^ | May 13, 2011 | Joanna Brooks

[Colofornian]

Yes, world, it is true: not all Mormons are alike. That's the news that's making headlines as buzz continues to build about the nascent presidential campaign of former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, Jr.

Of course, I've been saying it for months here at RD: Romney is what many Mormons call a TBM--or "true-believing Mormon"—an orthodox believer and devout practitioner of the faith. Huntsman? Well, he's something else—an other-than-orthodox Mormon of a variety that contemporary Mormonism may not yet have the vocabulary to describe.

Early Thursday morning, Matthew Bowman at the New Republic tried to spin the differences between Romney and Huntsman as generational and Huntsman's more easygoing Mormon style as evidence of the LDS Church's evolution from mid-20th century models of "business Mormonism" to a more cosmopolitan 21st century outlook. (Both Romney and Huntsman are baby boomers. Generational? I'm not so sure.)

But Time's profile of Huntsman (also published Thursday morning) made it seem that there might be more profound differences at work in the Romney-Huntsman divide. Time's Melinda Henneberger wrote:

And as for whether or not Huntsman still belongs to the Church of Latter-day Saints, I know less than I did before I asked him. ("I'm a very spiritual person," as opposed to a religious one, he says, "and proud of my Mormon roots."Roots? That makes it sound as if you're not a member anymore. Are you? "That's tough to define," he says. "There are varying degrees. I come from a long line of saloon keepers and proselytizers, and I draw from both sides.")

"Still belongs"? "Tough to define?" Those words quickly made headlines in the Mormon world and beyond, drawing heavy criticism from orthodox Mormons, and leading some observers to suggest that Romney and Huntsman represented two entirely different "strains" of the LDS faith. (A spokesman later clarified that Huntsman "remains a member of the church and proud to be part of the fabric of a large, vibrant faith.")

To understand why Huntsman described his Mormonism as "tough to define," it might help to understand the complicated world of Mormon identity politics.

What do you call a Catholic who grew up going to CCD but now attends mass only on Christmas, Ash Wednesday, and Easter, and supports gay rights? Catholic.

What do you call a Jew who loves bacon, doesn't believe in God, and attends shul only on High Holy Days? Jewish.

What do you call a Mormon who attends church once a month or less and leans liberal? Depends on who you ask.

For orthodox Mormons, Mormon identity is simple: black and white; in or out. If you attend Church weekly, believe literally, and maintain orthodox standards of behavior, you count as Mormon. Otherwise, you don't. (For the record, members attending once a month or more make up less than 20% of the 14 million members on the books of the LDS Church.)

For other-than-orthodox Mormons, Mormon identity is a more complicated spiritual and emotional mix, bound up in multiple factors like ancestry, upbringing, culture, experience, conviction, observance level, and institutional affiliation. And whereas religions with longer histories have generated multiple channels for religious practice—ranging, in the case of Judaism, from ultra-orthodox to reform and reconstructionists—there is only one Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Of course, Mormon communities have always hosted our fair share of internal diversity. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when Mormonism was an isolated to a closely kinship-networked group of settlers in the intermountain West, Mormonism was home to all types--both "saloon keepers and proselytizers," as Huntsman described his ancestors in the Time magazine interview. But over the course of the 20th century, as Mormons migrated out from the Wasatch front and assimilated into the world around us, we drew deeper lines between inside and out. And those lines have often been predicated on orthodoxy of thought and behavior.

In recent years, I've seen Mormon congregations embrace "Jack Mormons" (an insider term for a lapsed member), or liberal and unorthodox Mormons like me. But I've also seen Mormons characterize other Mormons as being "not Mormon" or even "anti-Mormon" (a term that carries a charge comparable to that of anti-Semitism) for expressing views that diverge from Church leaders on issues like women's equality or gay rights. And I've seen orthodox Mormons shun their own relatives and encourage or even goad them to leave the LDS Church for perceived lack of orthodoxy.

That means that any Mormon who goes through the fairly common experience of being raised a literal believer and orthodox practitioner but transitions to a less orthodox worldview as an adult (or coming out as gay) may find themselves rejected by their family and their social community of origin and cut off from the major institutional sources of their primary identity. Faced with such rejection, some unorthodox Mormons have quietly begun to label themselves New Order Mormons or Post-Mormons. Some describe themselves as ex-Mormon, but maintain a profound interest in Mormon issues and happenings. And because the stakes are so high, many unorthodox Mormons try to maintain as much privacy as possible, or even hesitate to fully claim a Mormon identity in public, if they do not meet the standards of Mormonism's most orthodox believers. Some want to avoid the kind of "no-win" situation admitting lack of orthodoxy often provokes in Mormon social contexts. Others do not want their unorthodox behavior to reflect poorly on a church they respect for its rigorous way of life.

It's as complicated an identity politics as I've seen in any American community. Just this week, a good friend chided me, "I'm sure you'd feel more at home in Judaism. You can believe whatever you want as long as you mumble a few prayers and appreciate a good kugel." And, man, do I love noodle kugel.

If he is an unorthodox or cultural Mormon, I completely sympathize with the tricky rhetorical position Huntsman has found and will continue to find himself in. But for Huntsman to say it is "tough to define" whether or not he is Mormon is like Chuck Schumer—a reform Jew who does not keep kosher and goes to synagogue on high holidays and whenever else it's convenient—saying it's "tough to define" whether or not he is a Jew. (For heaven's sake, with bloodlines like his, Huntsman is basically Mormon royalty, and his wife was quoting LDS hymns to the Time magazine reporter.

And the truly unfortunate thing is that Huntsman's slippery talk on Mormon identity may put him in bad a light as Mitt Romney, now infamous for his double-talk and "flip-flop" on healthcare. (Dana Milbank went so far as to compare Mitt to conjoined twins recently born in China. Ouch.)

In dodging the question of Mormon identity, was Huntsman acting the part of the slippery and crowd-pleasing politician? Or was he trying to negotiate the often difficult path of the other-than-orthodox Mormon? Either way, I claim him as a member of the tribe.

[Colofornian]

From the article: (For the record, members attending once a month or more make up less than 20% of the 14 million members on the books of the LDS Church.)

Well, what you won't see as a "for the record" from Lds members is the reverse 20%: And that is only 20% of the 14 million Mormon members on the books of the LDS Church are regular temple-goers.

[PghBaldy]

Buffoon is a GREAT word. Thank you for the laugh.

[teppe]

Colofornian ...

Simple ... you believe in a plan of damnation ....
Mormons believe in a plan of salvation.

You believe that everyone in history except people who believe in the Creeds of Christianity are damned.

LDS people believe that God and Christ has given all mankind the chance to be saved through baptism (1`st Cor 15:29).

Yes, even you will have a chance to throw away the perversion taught by the Creeds and embrace the true Jesus Christ, Lord of All, and Only begotten Son of the All-Mighty God (the Father), and by doing so be co-inheritors as he has promised (by being a co-inheritor with Christ of All-Mighty God, is essentially godhood)

In contrast, you believe in an evil God who takes his vengence on all who do not believe exactly as you do by burning them with an acetylene torch throughout eternity ... just to get even.

My Christ is a God of Love ... yours is a God of Vengence.

[Sherman Logan]

The splinters aren’t all fundies. Some have veered in the direction of more “orthodox” or even liberal Protestantism.

You are right that the fundamentalists are very similar to the original Mormons. John D. Lee would fit right in.

The mainstream group are the real heretics. Joe and Brigham would be appalled.

[Colofornian]

Simple ... you believe in a plan of damnation ....

Teppe, it's real simple: You believe in a Joseph Smith who redefined the word "damnation" -- a word for "judgment" -- as being "damned up." (May I remind you and all Mormons that "damnation" isn't exactly a "degree of glory!")

Hence, there essentially isn't everlasting damnation in Mormon theology...except, of course, it's plastered several times in the Book of Mormon! [Another Joseph Smith wishy-washy change]

Since you believe in temporary spirit prison, what do you do with the Hitlers & bin Ladens, eh? (What? Make them post-death Mormons by proxy-baptizing your teens for them?)

Mormons believe in a plan of salvation.

(In which the Mitt Romneys of the world become gods of their own world, eh? I wonder if he'll establish universal healthcare in that world?)

You believe that everyone in history except people who believe in the Creeds of Christianity are damned.

You have it reversed: 'Twas Joseph Smith, in Joseph Smith History vv. 18-20, who said these unnamed entities appeared to him and told him that ALL (as in 100%) of the Christian creeds were an "abomination" to these entities.

Tell us, Teppe. Read the Apostles Creed. What's so objectionable to a Mormon about the Apostles Creed? Answer it, please? What is so "abominable" about this creed? If the Apostles Creed was an "abomination" to these unnamed entities, doesn't that tell us something about who these entities were that appeared to Smith?

LDS people believe that God and Christ has given all mankind the chance to be saved through baptism (1`st Cor 15:29).

Oh, sure, per Lds rounding out genealogical research on billions & billions & billions & billions of people.,.including quite a number who lived in pre-Gutenberg times & didn't have the Mormon foresight to put their genealogical info on gold tablets for safekeeping.

So your "all mankind" includes the billions of people the Mormon church has no info or data on? Yes? (I don't think so)

Yes, even you will have a chance to throw away the perversion taught by the Creeds and embrace the true Jesus Christ, Lord of All, and Only begotten Son of the All-Mighty God (the Father), and by doing so be co-inheritors as he has promised

Teppe, the "Jesus" of Mormonism drowned and buried thousands of people in the Book of Mormon when he died. Sorry, that didn't happen.

Teppe, the "Jesus" of Mormonism didn't create all the angels -- whereas Colossians 1 says He created all things; in fact, the "Mormon Jesus" is simply identified as Satan's "elder brother."

Teppe, the "Jesus" of Mormonism per Bruce McConkie (& BYU prof Millet) is a "saved being" and only one of countless saviors. [Lds "prophet" Brigham Young says all the planets have their own savior; Lds "prophet" John Taylor & others have labeled Latter-day Saints as "saviors" due to baptism of the dead]. Sorry, Teppe, the Bible knows of only ONE Savior -- THE Savior (John 4:42; 1 John 4:14).

Teppe, the "Jesus" of Mormonism isn't to be directly prayed to or worshiped...even though both the Bible and Book of Mormon says to do both! [More Mormons and Mormon leaders directly contradicting even their own Book of Mormon!]

Mormons have a false "Jesus" Teppe.

(by being a co-inheritor with Christ of All-Mighty God, is essentially godhood)

So if my dog inherits my property, he becomes human at some point? Hmmm...that's a mighty strange inheritance law!

Teppe, do the math: If millions of people are receiving glory & receiving worship as gods, which ultimate God does that steal glory & worship from? Isn't that idolatry? Doesn't the Bible say plenty against idolatry?

So you're a confessed idolater, eh?

Why don't you try praying to and worshiping one God? Vs. trying to compete with God for others' worship & glory? (Wouldn't that be a novel idea?)

In contrast, you believe in an evil God who takes his vengence on all who do not believe exactly as you do by burning them with an acetylene torch throughout eternity ... just to get even.

And how long have you had this burning wicked desire to diss the God of the Bible when He has said, "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord."

Do you mean vengeance isn't His after all? That a perfectly just creator of us who knows where we have sinned and impacted others due to that sin can't exact justice for that? How long have you have been so anti-justice, Teppe?

Repent while you can...because you have openly dissed the God of the Bible before the world. (I don't recommend somebody doing that)

My Christ is a God of Love ... yours is a God of Vengence.

Well, let's see...Christ is your God...and He's a different god to you than Heavenly Father...so how many gods do you have?

My God is both love & just. In fact, only a God of love would exercise tough love by holding people to ultimate accountability...otherwise, that would mean that He would allow people to eternally exploit and hurt and impact others minus ultimate consequences. That's not love -- at least not for the victims and the "least of these" that Jesus talked about.

Teppe imagine you committed a series of sins that impacted somebody so deeply that they forever turned away from the God of the Bible. IOW, your sins had an everlasting impact on somebody. So then you would object if God held you accountable eternally because of the eternal impact of your actions? Really? How unfair you would be! How unjust you would be! Here in this hypothetical, your actions would contribute handing an eternal death sentence to someone, and yet you don't think you should share in that sentence! Just wow!

[Colofornian]

And BTW, here's the vital addendum to my final two graphs -- as to how God showed the world how he perfectly "married" His dual attributes of love & justice: As I said in my last post: My God is both love & just. In fact, only a God of love would exercise tough love by holding people to ultimate accountability...otherwise, that would mean that He would allow people to eternally exploit and hurt and impact others minus ultimate consequences. That's not love -- at least not for the victims and the "least of these" that Jesus talked about.

Teppe imagine you committed a series of sins that impacted somebody so deeply that they forever turned away from the God of the Bible. IOW, your sins had an everlasting impact on somebody. So then you would object if God held you accountable eternally because of the eternal impact of your actions? Really? How unfair you would be! How unjust you would be! Here in this hypothetical, your actions would contribute handing an eternal death sentence to someone, and yet you don't think you should share in that sentence! Just wow!

The story really shouldn't have "ended" there.

Because Heavenly Father took out His vengeance upon His perfect, Son, Jesus. And if we trust that He did that
--that our sin...our eternal crimes...
...were placed upon Jesus and the cross...and we trust that He carried our burden...
...then God's love was wed to vengeance...and He absorbed it all. We're no longer subject to the eternal justice of hell; because Jesus suffered it for us...

Teppe...if you don't see that God took out that vengeance upon the cross, and that everlasting hell is a "final resort" for a God who's done everything for people to avoid everlasting hell...then you have a pretty sorry view of the atonement.

[Religion Moderator]

Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[ansel12]

I own an acetylene torch but I’m not Mormon, I will never be a God.

[colorcountry]

Well, I know that I wasn’t Mormon enough for FR Mormons.They invited me to resign.

[Colofornian]

Well, I know that I wasn’t Mormon enough for FR Mormons.They invited me to resign.

I say it's pretty ironic.

Here a large handful of some of those same FR Mormons have since been zotted for unbecoming behavior...not an easy thing to accomplish for "nice" people. (Others have simply ebbed away)

And, I believe, the only two active FR open Mormons remaining are Restornu and Teppe. The rest have seemingly resigned to the realities that Mormonism is an indefensible posture beyond their home turf and programmed door-to-door Lds missionary lessons.

[Elsie]

Why is Huntsman’s Mormonism “Tough to Define”?

Uh...

Because MORMONism is 'tough to define'?

Ask any 3 MORMONs about ANY of their 'doctrine' and you'll get 6 answers!

[Elsie]

IOW, Romney was a 1966 Lds missionary when Mormonism was steeped in racism...disallowing blacks into the priesthood...and Huntsman was a 1979 Lds missionary...the year after Mormonism tried to moved away from its racist past.

No!!!

Say it isn't SO!!!

---

---

---

 

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.

The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings.

This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the 'servant of servants', and they will be, until that curse is removed."

Brigham Young-President and second 'Prophet' of the Mormon Church, 1844-1877- Extract from Journal of Discourses.

---

---

Here are two examples from their 'other testament', the Book of Mormon.

  2 Nephi 5: 21    'And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.'

  Alma 3: 6    'And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.'

---

---

 

August 27, 1954 in an address at Brigham Young University (BYU), Mormon Elder, Mark E Peterson, in speaking to a convention of teachers of religion at the college level, said:

"The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent.I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after."

"He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage."

"That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, 'First we pity, then endure, then embrace'...."

(Rosa Parks would have probably told Petersen under which wheel of the bus he should go sit.)

---

---

 1967, (then) Mormon President Ezra Taft Benson said,

"The Communist program for revolution in America has been in progress for many years and is far advanced. First of all, we must not place the blame upon Negroes. They are merely the unfortunate group that has been selected by professional Communist agitators to be used as the primary source of cannon fodder."

---

---

We are told that on June 8, 1978, it was 'revealed' to the then president, Spencer Kimball, that people of color could now gain entry into the priesthood.

According to the church, Kimball spent many long hours petitioning God, begging him to give worthy black people the priesthood. God finally relented.

---

---

Sometime before the 'revelation' came to chief 'Prophet' Spencer Kimball in June 1978, General Authority, Bruce R McConkie had said:

"The Blacks are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty.

The Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow there from, but this inequality is not of man's origin, it is the Lord's doings."

(Mormon Doctrine, pp. 526-527).

---

---

When Mormon 'Apostle' Mark E Petersen spoke on 'Race Problems- As they affect the Church' at the BYU campus in 1954, the following was also said:

"...if the negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory."

---

---

When Mormon 'Prophet' and second President of the Church, Brigham Young, spoke in 1863 the following was also said:

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so."

(Journal of Discourses, Vo. 10, p. 110)

[Elsie]

Highly inaccurate.

I think not.

The Salt Lake City bunch pretty much has the COPYRIGHT on that name.

[Elsie]

Some of the fundamentalist varieties still practice polygamy follow what their GOD told them to do in D&C 132.

The Salt Lake City bunch threw their god under the bus in favor of statehood in the 1890's.

---

---

---

---

 

Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriage...

I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws..."

~ Wilford Woodruff, 4th LDS President

 

[Elsie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sects_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement

I guess ol’ Joseph did NOT do a very good job of....

“...holding the church together than any man...”

[Elsie]

My Christ is a God of Love ... yours is a God of Vengence.

You REALLY need to read your own SCRIPTURES!

http://bookofmormonresearch.org/book-of-mormon-criticisms/generic-criticisms-of-the-book-of-mormon/jesus-christ-and-his-life/book-of-mormon-jesus-killed-millions

[Elsie]

Yes, even you will have a chance to throw away the perversion taught by the Creeds and embrace the true Jesus Christ, Lord of All, and Only begotten Son of the All-Mighty God (the Father), and by doing so be co-inheritors as he has promised (by being a co-inheritor with Christ of All-Mighty God, is essentially godhood)

---

The Doctrine and Covenants

 

Section 132

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded 12 July 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, and also the plurality of wives (see History of the Church, 5:501–7). Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.

1–6, Exaltation is gained through the new and everlasting covenant; 7–14, The terms and conditions of that covenant are set forth; 15–20, Celestial marriage and a continuation of the family unit enable men to become gods; 21–25, The strait and narrow way leads to eternal lives; 26–27, The law is given relative to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; 28–39, Promises of eternal increase and exaltation are made to prophets and Saints in all ages; 40–47, Joseph Smith is given the power to bind and seal on earth and in heaven; 48–50, The Lord seals upon him his exaltation; 51–57, Emma Smith is counseled to be faithful and true; 58–66, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth.

 

---

 

 16Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in ^amarriage; but are appointed angels in ^bheaven, which angels are ministering ^cservants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

 17For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are ^aangels of God forever and ever.

 18And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that ^acovenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.

 19And again, verily I say unto you, if a man ^amarry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and ^beverlasting covenant, and it is ^csealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of ^dpromise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the ^ekeys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit ^fthrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s ^gBook of Life, that he shall commit no ^hmurder whereby to shed innocent ⁱblood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their ^jexaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the ^kseeds forever and ever.

 20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from ^aeverlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be ^bgods, because they have ^call power, and the angels are subject unto them.

 21Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my ^alaw ye cannot attain to this glory.

 22For ^astrait is the gate, and narrow the ^bway that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the ^clives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me.

 23But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and shall receive your exaltation; that ^awhere I am ye shall be also.

 24This is ^aeternal lives—to ^bknow the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath ^csent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law.

 25^aBroad is the gate, and wide the way that leadeth to the ^bdeaths; and many there are that go in thereat, because they ^creceive me not, neither do they abide in my law.

[Elsie]

You believe that ...

Keep on trying to tell folks "what we believe" and I'll keep posting what YOUR religious organization has written and teaches.

[Pan_Yan]

Ping.

And as for whether or not Huntsman still belongs to the Church of Latter-day Saints, I know less than I did before I asked him. ("I'm a very spiritual person," as opposed to a religious one, he says, "and proud of my Mormon roots."Roots? That makes it sound as if you're not a member anymore. Are you? "That's tough to define," he says. "There are varying degrees."

At least he's staked out a solid position.

P.S. The punctuation in the article is really that bad.

[Godzilla]

Simple ... you believe in a plan of damnation .... Mormons believe in a plan of salvation.

Still no grasp of the situation eh teppe? Mormonism is pulling yourself up by your bootstrap religion - sans Jesus. Christianity recognizes that you cannot do that.

LDS people believe that God and Christ has given all mankind the chance to be saved through baptism (1`st Cor 15:29).

So lds rely upon a practice that pagans were doing who were not part of the Corinthian church.

In contrast, you believe in an evil God who takes his vengence on all who do not believe exactly as you do by burning them with an acetylene torch throughout eternity ... just to get even.

Hmmmmmm, tell us again HOW MANY this mormon Jesus killed before coming to some unknown, undisclosed place somewhere in the americas teppe. How many cities were destroyed by this mormon Jesus teppe?

My Christ is a God of Love ... yours is a God of Vengence.

Forget your bible already - that's understandable given that lds regularly put it down in favor of the most recent general conference - something like "vengence is mine sayeth the Lord"