Are You Concerned About Mitt Romney's Faith?

There has been much controversy here at Free Republic about a Mormon running for President. Mitt Romney has been questioned about his faith and many people here have posted things here expressing concern about what they consider to be "weird" doctrines. Today and tomorrow, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is holding their 177th Semi-Annual General Conference in which the leaders of the church address the membership around the world directly.

In light of the many misconceptions regarding the LDS (Mormon) church here on FR, I offer the following links for those who have questions and concerns about Mitt and his faith. Conference is a great opportunity for those who know little about the Mormon church to have a few questions answered; to get your answers straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Therefore, here is a link to the broadcast website:

There are audio streams available in multiple languages and video from KSL TV in Salt Lake City and KBYU, Brigham Young University's television station. The video links are in the first paragraph at the top of the page.

The next session begins at 4pm Eastern/3pm Central. Tomorrow's sessions will be at 12 noon/11 am Central and 4 pm Eastern/3 pm Central. Sessions are 2 hours long.

>>but after really delving into the research, I have found the doctrine to not be true;

I will take at face value your assertion that your analysis did not bring you the results you had hoped for. As for proving the Gospel false, that is actually very easy, prove the Book of Mormon to be false, and you’ve done it. Many have tried for years and failed. Proving it true is also very easy, pray about it and get an answer from God and nothing else will really matter.

>>Although I would suggest to you that the Mormon Church views all non-Mormon
>>churches as Apostates via the great apostacy; this can be seen clearly in discourses
>>and teachings by various Prophets of the church

Generally the appellation of Apostate is reserved for those who openly reject the church, not for their children. The Doctrine and Dogma of a church can be apostate without the members themselves being apostate. Just my opinion, you seem to still have an open mind, so I would not even call you an apostate, merely “Troubled”. I hope that does not offend you.

>>The LDS doctrine teaches of a Jesus Christ who is the brother of Satan
Yes, we are all brothers of Satan and Jesus also, I will share with you a few scriptures, not trying to be exhaustive, but a few that back up that interpretation, if it’s ok with you.

If you turn to Revelations Chapter 12 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/rev/12/3-4,7-10,17#3) read the whole thing through first so everything will be in context, then look at Verses
3, the dragon is another name for Stan Biblically, and this is a retelling of the war in heaven before the world was.
4. Satan drew 1/3 of the children after him in his rebellion.

Now this rebellion happened before the world was, so Satan and all of us must have existed then in some form.

Now go to 7 Michael who was later called Adam in mortality, lead the fight in heaven before the world was, Satan has his own structure and hexarchy of followers copied from the Father, they are called Angels jut as Gods Angels are.

8&9 Satan lost and he and his angels were cast out of heaven down to the earth.

Verse ten is very important for your point, I will include it here.

10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

So, Satan and his angels were “brethren” to Jesus, and Michael.

17 Satan now makes war with those who strive to keep the Commandments and serve Jesus.

Now I will leave Revelations, and go to some of the other scriptures in the Bible.

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Thus we see that God has more than one son, and Satan can be numbered in this group.

“The Son of God” is a common name for Jesus Christ because he is preeminent among all the sons of God. (I could give you a ton of Scriptures for this one, but you could probably find as many as I could :-)

I could go on, but the idea that Jesus and Satan are brothers is far from without support in the Bible.

>>The LDS doctrine teaches of a Jesus Christ who is the brother of Satan. It is that point
>>of teaching that I have found no biblical basis. Therefore, I can’t say that the Mormon
>>doctrine is Christian because I don’t believe that the Bible teaches that Satan and
>>Christ are brothers, so the question FOR ME becomes what Christ does the Mormon
>>church follow?

We do not claim ownership of Jesus Christ, indeed no man can command him, we offer ourselves and take upon ourselves the Name of Jesus Christ even Jesus Born of Mary by a miraculous virgin birth. This is the Jesus of whom we speak.

Some times I think Christians are like the blind men describing the elephant to each other. We are describing the same elephant, but doing so imperfectly.

>>The King Follet discourse teaches that God did not have the power to create our spirits

Having read the King Follet discourse a while ago (and I confess it was some time ago) I am not aware of this passage, Intelligence (which is not Spirit matter) cannot be created, nor destroyed, but that is not the same as giving birth to a spirit, or a Baby.

Please direct me to this passage of this discourse so I may more fully understand your position.

>> I believe and always have believed that God is Omnipotent, Omnipresent,
>>Omniscient. The Mormon doctrine teaches that he is not Omnipotent, Omnipresent,
>>and Omniscient.

That is strange since I have been taught that God knows all, sees all and with him all things are possible. In short, I believe he is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient please show me where it is taught that he is not, for I am only aware of where these attributes of his are affirmed, and if you wish, I can provide links to such teachings, but I am trying not to write a book in response to your questions, so, for the moment, I will forgo those quotations.

>> I sincerely hope that they are Christian in God’s eyes which is really all that matters.

I agree with you on this completely.

>> ***Remember, all of this is in the context of would I vote for one for president***
Yes, I remember, but I still can’t fathom why A mans religious conviction would be more important than his political convictions. This is a secular job after all, isn’t it?

>> No, I haven’t heard anything about Rocky Anderson.

Rockey Anderson is the Mayor of SLC and is a rabid anti-Mormon who never misses an opportunity to stick his finger in the eye of the church. That said, it keeps the non-Mormons happy to have him there, so much so that they turn out in droves to re-elect him.

>> I’m still reserving judgement on Thompson. I think he has supported the Bush
>>amnesty stuff and I think he’s big on H1Bs and Free (but unfair) Trade. He does
>>initially strike me as a Reagen-esque type, though.

As for Fred, Well, here is a link to him on Fox News, hear him in his own words, and yes, he talks about illegal immigration, and Roe V Wade, and Libby.

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Snw7_6mJf5c
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN3z4mqRn7I

Have a good day, and I hope I have not offended you.

I don’t think I ever made the effort to prove that the LDS Church is false. I researched to prove that it was true and I found that I can not honestly say that it is true.

Most of the things you bring up I have researched. I’ll go thru them one by one.

>> Generally the appellation of Apostate is reserved for those who openly reject the church, not for their children. The Doctrine and Dogma of a church can be apostate without the members themselves being apostate. Just my opinion, you seem to still have an open mind, so I would not even call you an apostate, merely “Troubled”. I hope that does not offend you.

That’s a very fine line to say that the other Christian churches are apostate, but the people who follow their doctrine are not apostates. A very fine line there; respectfully, I would differ with you on that.

I take no offense to being labeled “Troubled”, but I have simply studied the Mormon prophets (Joseph Smith, Brigham Young mainly) through their own words oftentimes (Journal of Discourses) and much of the points on Mormon scriptures (Bruce Mckonkie, etc) and I’ve found their interpretations of scriptures to be logically incorrect. For example, I’ll address the illustration you put forward regarding Revelation below.

>> Now this rebellion happened before the world was, so Satan and all of us must have existed then in some form.

I believe the Book of Revelation is John’s prophetic viewing of times to come after his viewing. They were not events that had already transpired before John had the viewing. Therefore, the war in Heaven could not have happened before Adam and Eve. Is there something that leads you to believe that that “war in heaven” happened before John’s vision? I’ve found nothing to support that. In verse 1 of Revelation: “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must SHORTLY COME TO PASS; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John”

See the “shortly come to pass” part. That tells me that the things which he is being shown are to come to pass after his vision. So, logically, when someone in the Mormon church tells me that Revelation speaks about the war in heaven when Satan was cast out and before Adam and Eve came to the Earth, it just doesn’t make sense.

>> 10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

See, here the scripture says that Satan is the ACCUSER of our brethren. It does not say that he is our brother.

>> Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Again, this scripture says that the sons of God came and Satan came with them. It does not say here that Satan is a son of God, just that he came with them. When that scripture says refers to the sons of God, I understand it to mean the “adoptive” sons of God that Jesus says we become when we accept him as our Savior. But put that aside for a minute, logically, that scripture does not say that Satan is a son of God. Just because he was among the “sons” of God doesn’t mean he was one.

One point about Satan who was originally an arch-angel. We both agree on that. Hebrews chpt 1 vs 11 speaks about how Angels grow old and perish. So, if Satan is an Angel and will grow old and perish, then if Jesus is his literal brother, then would he not grow old and perish too. I can’t accept that as truth.

>> Having read the King Follet discourse a while ago (and I confess it was some time ago) I am not aware of this passage, Intelligence (which is not Spirit matter) cannot be created, nor destroyed, but that is not the same as giving birth to a spirit, or a Baby.

Ok, I’m too tired to look up the discourse, but it’s a great read and I encourage you to take a look at it again. I believe Joseph Smiths use of the word Intelligence is interchanged in his discourse with the word spirit. It doesn’t really matter though, because if our intelligences (i.e or minds existed) were around back then and as Joseph says, God did not have the power to create those intelligences, then logically, Joseph is saying that God did not have the ability to create us (which he says directly in the discourse). That means that God is not Omnipotent, which you said you believe He is Omnipotent. How can you explain that disconnect? If God is Omnipotent, then he can do anything, correct?

Thanks for the discussion, and be assured, I don’t take offense. I am interested to hear your answers to the questions that I have posed.

>>I don’t think I ever made the effort to prove that the LDS Church is false. I researched to prove that it was true and I found that I can not honestly say that it is true.

“Houston, we have a problem” (Grin)

There is a reason we call religions “faiths”. You cannot “prove” Jesus existed. No one can “Prove” the Bible is the word of God. If you were looking for empirical “Proof” that the church is true, I am not surprised you did not find it. Some things can and often are true that cannot be proven with research. These things must be taken on faith. On the other hand you can prove that something cannot be true. Lets take a few examples. I can tell you that I am a Christian, and in lieu of any other facts and because you do not want to be rude, you will believe me. That’s faith. You can then observe me behaving in a most un-Christian manner toward my wife, friends and strangers, and conclude that I am not really a Christian after all.

To say that you can’t prove a church is true in my interpretation just means you don’t have faith in it (which is ok, I am not denigrating your position, just defining it in my terms so you will understand my perspective) that however is vastly different from proving the church is “wrong” Which some of your statements here would have seemed to indicate, like there is no support for Jesus and Satan being brothers in the bible. I have shown you some scriptures and explained that from my perspective they support that View. You respond that they do not. Give ma a break here, these scriptures can be interpreted, and reasonably so , to mean what I say I think they mean which means it could be that I am right. I could also be wrong, but you have yet to give me your interpretation of what they mean.

I believe I said earlier that being a Christian is a personal thing because “Christianity” per se is a stretch for some people. We accept it because we live in a culture based on that faith. I met a Hindu in Taiwan who‘s explanation of Jesus was a bit embarrassing, I will try to capture the essence of his words and you should read this with a British accent in your mind since that was where he studied English. “You mean to tell me that you believe that this bloke who lived 2,000 years ago, was a convicted criminal, and died nailed to a bit of wood is going to hear your prayers and let you into heaven after absolving you of sin? That’s a bit dodgy isn’t it?” The most glorious truths can be phrased in such a way to make them sound silly, but yes, even phrased that way, I will state that I believe in Christ.

To sum up, the only way you can “Believe” a religion is through personal revelation.

>> Most of the things you bring up I have researched. I’ll go thru them one by one.

You can research a religion all you want to and you will never “prove” any religion true.

>> That’s a very fine line to say that the other Christian churches are apostate, but the
>>people who follow their doctrine are not apostates. A very fine line there; respectfully,
>>I would differ with you on that.
Well, it’s my opinion, I would not expect for us to agree on very opinion I hold or this would be a very short, very boring conversation wouldn’t it? (grin)

>> I believe the Book of Revelation is John’s prophetic viewing of times to come after his viewing.

IMHO some of Revelations is back ground information for his revelations about the future.

>> Is there something that leads you to believe that that “war in heaven” happened before John’s vision?

Well, John did not say in the year… (grin) however, either Satan was cast out of heaven to the earth before the Vision, or no one before Christ had to deal with Satan here. Hmm, there was this story about a Garden and a snake… (grin) lets just day it fits the timeline I have constructed in my head to have this war happen before the world was created. When do you think this war in heaven is going to happen?

>> See the “shortly come to pass” part. That tells me that the things which he is being shown are to come to pass after his vision. So, logically, when someone in the Mormon church tells me that Revelation speaks about the war in heaven when Satan was cast out and before Adam and Eve came to the Earth, it just doesn’t make sense.

English is a low context language. The words that we use typically have a specific meaning that does not change with the sentence they are placed in. Many other anguages however are High context languages, the only way you can see the correct meaning is “in context” where you have all the back ground material. I have found the Bible to be a high context environment; the parables for example take on more meaning as I stuffy the culture in which they were given. If you don’t mind I’d like to give an example:

I had the opportunity to go to Israel in April of 2000. I arrived at about 2:00 AM via a rental car from the airport Jerusalem. As my wife and I came over a pass and could see Jerusalem, it glowed in the moonlight, the old city is carved from a unique Golden limestone that is plentiful there. This glowing city caught the light from stars, moon and some electric light, and positively glowed in the night. My wife and I observing that it was set on a hill in the middle of the valley looked at each other and said “A city that is set upon a hill cannot be hid.” For the true meaning and impact of Jesus’ statement had never hit home to us before. He knew that everyone within the sound of his voice had seen Jerusalem at night, and would know what he was talking about. Jerusalem, the city of David, the City on a hill could not be “hid”.

This part that I quoted about the war in heaven is Background information that is glossed quickly over to set the stage for the revelations about the future, in my opinion anyway. I do not ask that you agree with my interpretation, I do however ask if you accept it as a plausible interpretation (I have seen some interpretations of the bible where I could not see how people “got there” and I hope I am not presenting you with such a case here)

>> See, here the scripture says that Satan is the ACCUSER of our brethren. It does not say that he is our brother.

OK, lets break this down:

1. Jesus had Brothers (Bretheren)
2. Satan is accusing these Brethren of something
3. This accusation is being done before God (The father)

So, if Jesus had brothers, and was accused before God by Satan, that does not Prove that Satan was Jesus’ brother, but it does prove that Satan thought he could accuse Jesus of something before God. If Jesus and God were indeed the same personage, accusing Jesus of something before God would be as absurd as accusing a judge of a crime while on trial in his court room. Thus God and Christ are separate beings here, and John has just taught us that. Now if God the father and Jesus Christ are Separate beings, and Jesus and Michael are Bothers as this scripture says, and yes, it says that they are our bothers as well, then is it a stretch to believe that Satan (who fell from heaven and was once an angel like Michael http://scriptures.lds.org/en/isa/14/12#12) is also our brother?

>> Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

>>Again, this scripture says that the sons of God came and Satan came with them. It does not say here that Satan is a son of God, just that he came with them.

The Sons of God would look like Jesus who is the preeminent son of God. Jesus looked mortal while upon the earth, indeed, he told his disciples he was in the express image of the father (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/14/9) so now we know that God has the form of a man. IF Satan was able to “Sneak in” with the Sons of God we can reasonably assume he has the form of a man also (no horns, no tail, and probably not bright red) If Satan had the form of God, how then would he have that form unless he was created after the manner of God’s Children, and If he was created after the manner of God’s children, is he not our borther?

I do not expect that you will go “Wow, it must be true!” and have a sudden epiphany that the church is true, only that the logic is supportable. If the logic is supportable, then you might be able to find the faith to believe in the “Truth that can never be proven”.

>>When that scripture says refers to the sons of God, I understand it to mean the “adoptive” sons of God that Jesus says we become when we accept him as our Savior.

I can see the logic of what you are saying; can you see the possible interpretation of what I am saying?

>>One point about Satan who was originally an arch-angel. We both agree on that.
>>Hebrews chpt 1 vs 11 speaks about how Angels grow old and perish. So, if Satan is an
>>Angel and will grow old and perish, then if Jesus is his literal brother, then would he
>>not grow old and perish too. I can’t accept that as truth.

OK, lets go to the Scriptures:
Hebrews 1:10&11
10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;

I see nothing about angels perishing, the earth and the heavens passing away, yes.

>>Ok, I’m too tired to look up the discourse, but it’s a great read and I encourage you to take a look at it again.

Encouragement accepted, Grin.

>>I believe Joseph Smiths use of the word Intelligence is interchanged in his discourse with the word spirit.

Yes, as all men are human, but not all humans are men (my wife not be happy to be told she was a man…)

>> It doesn’t really matter though, because if our intelligences (i.e or minds existed) were
>>around back then and as Joseph says, God did not have the power to create those
>>intelligences, then logically, Joseph is saying that God did not have the ability to
>>create us (which he says directly in the discourse). That means that God is not
>>Omnipotent, which you said you believe He is Omnipotent. How can you explain that
>>disconnect?

I once ran into an atheist who claimed he could prove God was not omnipotent. I told him to “lay it on me” His “logic” was that ”God can’t create a Rock so big that he can’t lift it”. I responded that God was Omniscient. He said So, what does that mean? I said God is not stupid. This just goes to show that we can run our selves into logical corners that the same level of logic that got us into the corner cannot get us out of. God uses intelligence which cannot be created, nor destroyed, and he has an infinite supply of it, so what’s the problem again? Oh, the definition of omnipotence. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omnipotent) I checked just to be sure and there is no conflict with Joseph Smith’s testimony of God and omnipotence.

>> If God is Omnipotent, then he can do anything, correct?
There are some things God just can’t do, like break his word.
>> Thanks for the discussion, and be assured, I don’t take offense. I am interested to hear your answers to the questions that I have posed.
I hope you will think about my answers, and I hope you understand I have limited myself to the Bible in answering your questions. The reason I did this is that the truth is in the Bible, but it is difficult to find because the Bible is self contradictory. I could have been more specific if I had used the D&C and the Book of Mormon, but since those are scriptures only if Joseph Smith was a prophet, arguing that he was prophet by his statements is kind of like picking yourself up by your belt to get over a fence you can’t get over any other way.

That said, the only way you will ever know the truth is to have it revealed to you, and not by me. (I have a high opinion of myself grin, but not that high)

Note to self, Write smaller posts, or failing that use a smaller font so they look smaller. (grin)

>> “You mean to tell me that you believe that this bloke who lived 2,000 years ago, was a convicted criminal, and died nailed to a bit of wood is going to hear your prayers and let you into heaven after absolving you of sin? That’s a bit dodgy isn’t it?”

Man, I really am developing a low opinion of the Brits. To refer to Jesus as a Bloke is the height of arrogance.

>> Hmm, there was this story about a Garden and a snake… (grin) lets just day it fits the timeline I have constructed in my head to have this war happen before the world was created. When do you think this war in heaven is going to happen?

I believe that the war in heaven will happen during the end times just before Christ returns. The war in Heaven happens because Satan finally battles God in his own realm. Then Satan is chained and bound and then ultimately cast into the Lake of Fire.

See, you say this because it fits into the timeline you’ve contructed, the scripture says different. The scripture says regarding the timing of these visions:

“The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what MUST SOON take place” (1:1)

“what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later” (1:19)

“Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this” (4:1)

“These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place” (22:6)

In this specific scripture, this is a prime example of why I find the LDS doctrine incorrect in it’s interpretation. The Mormon doctrine makes assumptions to construct the timelines in their minds.

>> I can see the logic of what you are saying; can you see the possible interpretation of what I am saying?

I understand that someone could interpret it that way.

You are assuming that Jesus Christ is the loud voice. But the scripture doesn’t say that. In fact, that bit of scripture refers to “power of his Christ”; if that was Jesus speaking, then why would he refer to himself in the 3rd person. That’s another assumption. If it is not Jesus Christ speaking, then you cannot say that this scripture says that we are brothers of Christ, since he is not saying it.

>> OK, lets go to the Scriptures:
>> Hebrews 1:10&11
>> 10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the
>> foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of >> thine hands:
>> 11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all
>> shall wax old as doth a garment;

>> I see nothing about angels perishing, the earth and the >> heavens passing away, yes.

Well, on that point, I’ll reconsider. The bulk of the chapter is comparing Jesus to Angels and how they are different. But I can see your point and I’ll think on that.

>> There are some things God just can’t do, like break his word.

You said that he was Omnipotent, and now you say there are things that he just can’t do. Words have meaning, and what you are saying is totally contradictory. Not to offend you, but don’t you see how that borderlines on deception. I asked you if you believe God was omnipotent and you responded without hesitation that you did. But now you say otherwise. Why would you just not say that you believe God is not omnipotent?

Also, if we were born of Him (and Heavenly Mother), then how did we exist as intelligences before?

My friend, it just doesn’t make sense at all.

I believe without a doubt that God is Omnipotent; that He can do anything and that he created our Human spirits just by willing us into existence.

Thanks for the discussion. I’ll await your response, but I’ve said all that I can say. I’m not trying to disprove Mormonism, just explain some of the reasons why I’ve come to my conclusion as a result of my studies.

There’s two sides to that story. The Mormon Dannites were part of the problem in Missouri. They were a militant group created by the Church leaders (Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, etc.) at the time and they went out and pillaged and killed for retribution, and they killed and threatened Mormon dissenters in their midst. Joseph Smith taught that it was Gods will that for the people that the Mormons vanquished for retribution(killed or burned homes, etc), it was ok to take their personal belongings. That’s why you see that when the Mormons were driven out, the Missourians who had their stuff stolen took back their belongings. You see, some of the Mormons back then did that. And yes, there were mobs of Missourians that did the same to the Mormons. The Mormons were not innocent, just as the Missourians weren’t innocent either. It’s naive to think that Boggs just woke up one day and decided that he should exterminate the Mormons. His decision came over a period of months and confrontations between the militias and the Mormons, and retribution on both sides. I’ve read many of Boggs’ letters to the Legislature regarding the issue, and I don’t get the impression he was a hitler-like leader who just wanted to persecute the Mormons. He was trying to control an explosive situation during a difficult time in our nations history, where there was a lot of bloodshed over disputed territories and a lot of distrust of people with differences.

On top of all that, you had a religious group that appeared clearly to be a separatist movement. Sidney Rigdon gave a famous speech endorsing such separatism from the Federal government.

The Mountain Meadows Massacre was about a group of Mormons who killed 150 men women and children over the course of several days. This was planned and executed over time when people had time to be aware of what was going on. It wasn’t like one man bombed them, there were many people involved, and I personally don’t believe that the higher up leadership in the LDS church wasn’t aware of what was happening. In fact, court records show that Lee admitted that Brigham Young was aware and had ordered the killings. After several days of surrounding and picking off the men women and children, the Mormons’ leader Lee (who was a Dannite since Missouri and close adviser to Brigham Young the Prophet) and his men offered the remaining group of men and women a chance to surrender with the assurance that they would not be killed. What did they do? They marched the remaining men women and children who surrendered and then shot them in their heads (except for kids under 8 yrs). Learn about the details and you may see a difference.

My point about bringing that whole thing up was to illustrate the dangers of not having a critical mind and simply doing what your leaders ask because they say God said so. We should all learn from what happened at that massacre and be wary of religions that ask us not to question.

And no, I can’t forgive what those bastards did!

But my reason for not wanting a Mormon for president isn’t based on that. I will vote for who I believe to be a Christian Conservative because that’s my choice. And, guess what, that ain’t Mitt.

EXCERPT FROM KING FOLLETT DISCOURSE BY JOSEPH SMITH:

(This is where Joseph Smith says that God does not have the power to create our spirits and that our spirits are equal to God’s; I am posting this because you asked me to show you the link [here’s the text itself]. This proves that the Mormon doctrine does not teach that God is omnipotent.)

***********************
I have another subject to dwell upon, which is calculated to exalt man; but it is impossible for me to say much on this subject. I shall therefore just touch upon it, for time will not permit me to say all. It is associated with the subject of the resurrection of the dead, — namely, the soul — the mind of man — the immortal spirit[7]. Where did it come from? All learned men and doctors of divinity say that God created it in the beginning; but it is not so: the very idea lessens man in my estimation. I do not believe the doctrine; I know better. Hear it, all ye ends of the world; for God has told me so; and if you don’t believe me, it will not make the truth without effect. I will make a man appear a fool before I get through; if he does not believe it. I am going to tell of things more noble.

We say that God himself is a self-existent being. Who told you so? It is correct enough; but how did it get into you heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? Man does exist upon the same principles. God made a tabernacle and put a spirit into it, and it became a living soul. (Refers to the old Bible.) How does it read in the Hebrew? It does not say in the Hebrew that God created the spirit of man. It says “God made man out of the earth and put into him Adam’s spirit, and so became a living body.”

The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal [8]with God himself. I know that my testimony is true; hence, when I talk to these mourners, what have they lost? Their relatives and friends are only separated from their bodies for a short season: their spirits which existed with God have left the tabernacle of clay only for a little moment, as it were; and they now exist in a place where they converse together the same as we do on the earth.

I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had not beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven.

I want to reason more on the spirit of man; for I am dwelling on the body and spirit of man — on the subject of the dead. I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man — the immortal part, because it has no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man. As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning, it will have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I MIGHT WITH BOLDNESS PROCLAIM FROM THE HOUSE-TOPS THAT GOD NEVER HAD THE POWER TO CREATE THE SPIRIT OF MAN AT ALL. God himself could not create himself.

Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit [9]from age to age, and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement.
**********************

>>Man, I really am developing a low opinion of the Brits. To refer to Jesus as a Bloke is the height of arrogance.

The guy was a Hindu, at least that’s how he identified himself, he learned his English in England; I don’t think they are responsible for his manners, or his religious convictions.

>>I believe that the war in heaven will happen during the end times just before Christ returns.

Why?

>>The war in Heaven happens because Satan finally battles God in his own realm. Then Satan is chained and bound and then ultimately cast into the Lake of Fire.

You time frame is illogical, and it disagrees with scripture.

>>See, you say this because it fits into the timeline you’ve contructed

My timeline coincides with timelines established by scriptorians, Mormon, and Christian, strangely even the Catholic Church agrees with my timeline; Satan was cast to earth before the Garden. After the Final battle, he will be cast into the pit and will bother us no more.

>>The scripture says regarding the timing of these visions:

LOL! What about where he talks about Christ being born? This was written a while after that. Face it John jumps all around in the time frame denying that is denying a plain truth.

>>In this specific scripture, this is a prime example of
>>why I find the LDS doctrine incorrect in it’s
>>interpretation.

An interpretation is only correct if you already agree with it? ROTFLOL!

>>The Mormon doctrine makes assumptions to construct the timelines in their minds.

The inference being that you don’t make any assumptions. Well lets keep going anyway.

>>I understand that someone could interpret it that way.

Why thank you, after simply stating that I’m wrong, without giving more than your opinion as proof, you throw me a bone at last.

>>You are assuming that Jesus Christ is the loud voice.

I assumed no such thing, I said no such thing, even though Jesus talks about himself in the third person in the scriptures several times) I did not assume it for my logic because it cannot be proven, and it is irrelavent to my logical construct. John wrote it in a book in the Bible, that is all I need.

>>If it is not Jesus Christ speaking, then you cannot say
>>that this scripture says that we are brothers of Christ,
>>since he is not saying it.

LOL! Is this your example of critical thinking? It does not matter who is saying it, it’s in the Bible, and They are speaking of Jesus, Michael and their brothers; therefore it is true. Or don’t you think the Bible is “True” I thought you did not like that Mormons interpret the bible, and here you are interpreting it for me.

>>You said that he was Omnipotent, and now you say there are things that he just can’t do.
So are you saying God can Break his word? Are you saying he can make a rock so big that he can’t lift it, but if he couldn’t lift it that would be something he can’t do…

>>Words have meaning, and what you are saying is totally contradictory.

Did you go to the Dictionary reference I gave you? What I am saying is in exact conformity to the dictionary definition of Omnipotent. You do not get to redefine words.

>>Not to offend you, but don’t you see how that borderlines on deception.

Being exact and correct is never deceitful.

>>I asked you if you believe God was omnipotent and you
>>responded without hesitation that you did.

I do believe God is Omnipotent, but Omnipotent just does not mean what you think it does. Does Infinite power mean he can do anything? Or just anything that is “Doable”. How about saving an unrepentant soul? Can God do that? I can keep coming up with things God just can’t do, and you have only a tired dogma about why it’s wrong by your own interpretation of the scriptures.

Do you know what a syllogism is? (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/syllogism)

Let’s do one
A) God loves all his children; God wants all his children to join him in heaven.
B) Some people will not go to heaven / Some people will not repent.
C) God can’t save the unrepentant

>>Also, if we were born of Him (and Heavenly Mother),
>>then how did we exist as intelligences before?

How did we as spirit become children of our earthly parents? (Same question, different time frame)

>> My friend, it just doesn’t make sense at all.

Not when you throw the word bloke in there, Grin

>>I believe without a doubt that God is Omnipotent; that
>>He can do anything and that he created our Human spirits
>>just by willing us into existence.

I support you right to believe what you want, but there is no more “Evidence” for what you say than for what I say.

>> Thanks for the discussion. I’ll await your response, but I’ve said all that I can say. I’m
>>not trying to disprove Mormonism, just explain some of the reasons why I’ve come to
>>my conclusion as a result of my studies.

If you say so, Grin

All I can say is you’ve got issues with reality.

Thank you for displaying the critical thinking you said we lack.

>>That’s interesting that you try to make your point by changing the text in the King Follett discourse from Joseph Smith’s reference to ‘Spirit’ to ‘Intelligence’. I’m simply posting what the text says, I didn’t write it or alter it in any way.

You are amazing!

We already had the discussion of how all spirits are intelligences, like all men are human. The reverse is not true. We also talked about how often in the King Follet discourse Joseph often used them interchangeably when talking about the union (it’s a math thing) between the two sets intelligence, and Spirit. I point out that the King Follet discourse was reconstructed from personal notes taken by people who were there. This reconstruction took place years after the discourse and after Joseph Smith was martyred. (he was no available for comment on the compiled amalgam of his sermon) Your point was that his statement as you quoted it is at odds with other statements he made before the discourse, and after. Your point is that he can’t be a prophet, because he contradicts himself. It is more reasonable to assume that his words were consistent with the many documented times in which he spoke publicly on the same topic? Not to you. Is it more reasonable to assume that using a word interchangeably might confuse an amateur note taker? Not to you.

So, post the link you got this from, since I could not find it at the sites I have used (and no the King follet Discourse is not on LDS.org sit because it is not cannon of the church for exactly the reasons I state here that it might be wrong. If the source cannot be authenticated, the document will not be considered Cannon by the church.

If you are going to judge us and challenge us do so by canonized scripture or accept that we will start discussing the books in the apocrypha, and the Gnostic Gospels. Care to discuss the Gospel of Mary?

>>This King Follett discourse is officially accepted by the Mormon Church

No, it is not, it is included only in historical materials, not in doctrinal materials.

>>and included in the History and the Churches Journal of Discourses

Historical records, was there a King Follet Sermon, undoubtedly, however we do not have an accurate transcript of what was said.

>>If you question whether my source is valid or not, then by all means, I encourage you to find a source that you consider valid (www.lds.org). You’ll find it says the same thing.

Fine, I’ll find good online source right after you reveal yours (grin this is the third time you have missed your opportunity to be forthcoming.)

>>Do you have a problem with what was said?

I am sure that what was said was consistent with the other sermons Joseph Smith gave on the spur of the moment. I have a problem with what you say was said. You have refused to post a link to your source. I Googled your quote and found nothing that was not on an obvious anti-Mormon site. I Googled the King Follet discourse and went to non-church sites with the King Follet discourse on it and used the search function (on at leas three sites), on none of them did I get a “Hit” on your sentence of import. This tells me you are using a quote that was tweaked by anti Mormons. I have repeatedly invited and implored you to share your link so all the readers can know you are on the up and up. You have not done so, you have not stated that you do not have such a link for any valid reason (typed it from a book, etc). I am left with the conclusion that you came to this thread, acted interested in discussion, then jump on your favorite topic and are using a quotation you know to may be tainted.

>>That Joseph Smith said that God did not have the power to create our Spirits?
This is precisely the point, without a link, I cannot be sure that it is credible that Joseph Smith actually said that.

Do you care to actually tell where you got this quote, or are you going to go on unsupported, and therefore without credibly?

It is entirely up to you. You are asserting something was said that was inconsistent, the “Burden of proof” would have to be on you. I have tried to verify your quote, and failed, your refusal to post the link does not look good.

Have a nice day.

Again, I am not interested in trying to disprove Mormonism. These discussions have come about because people are asking me questions as to why I believe as I do. Look back at the thread and you will see that I have been responding to questions. If you don’t want to hear what I have to say, then stop asking me questions.

>> Your point is that he can’t be a prophet, because he contradicts himself.

I never said that Joseph Smith isn’t a Prophet, and I have never attempted to make that point. That’s ancillary to the discussion we are having.

I am amazed that you have such a problem with the text. Here’s another excerpt from the discourse, again, Joseph is saying that the spirit of man had no beginning. If it had no beginning, then how is it that you are born to a Heavenly Father and Mother?

“is it logic to say the spirit of man had a beginning & yet had no end? It does not have a beginning or end”

And from Joseph Smith’s own diary, “God never had power to create the spirit of man”

>> Is it more reasonable to assume that using a word interchangeably might confuse an amateur note taker?

These weren’t amateur note takers. The first people to take these notes were actually trusted General Conference Clerks at the time, and notes were also taken by Wilford Woodruff who became a future Prophet; also, some of these statements are found in Joseph Smith’s own diary (see quote above).

>> This reconstruction took place years after the discourse and after Joseph Smith was martyred.

The King Follett discourse was printed and published in the Times and Seasons (owned by the Mormon Church) about 4 months after the speech. Years later it was reconstructed, but thankfully, we have both texts to review. Both of which use the word spirit as I have illustrated.

>> If you are going to judge us and challenge us do so by canonized scripture or accept that we will start discussing the books in the apocrypha, and the Gnostic Gospels. Care to discuss the Gospel of Mary?

In my research (from many different sources), I looked at both canonized scripture and discourses taught by your Prophets. The discourses I have excerpted are from the below sources:

“http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_06/refJDvol6-1.html"; AND
“http://www.boap.org/LDS/Parallel/1844/7Apr44.html#N_1_";

Personally, I look at what your Prophets have said. Your Prophets have taught that they are saying the word of God through them, so it is very important to look at what your Prophets have said. I would think you should be interested in what they’ve said as well. You should read all of the Journal of Discourses.

Let me ask you the question directly. Do you believe God created your Spirit? Is what you believe in line with what Joseph Smith taught?

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.