You said — “I’m not a bit worried about it. If it takes you a billion words to refute ten of mine, who has truth on their side?”
Well, I’m glad you’re not really concerned about your bandwidth. For a minute there, I thought you exhibited some concern over it.... :-)
As far as the number of words — whether we use a “sound bite” or “write a book” — neither is a measure of truth. As I see it (from your various comments up above) you seem to go with parameters that have nothing to do with a measurement or determination of “truth”. They are mostly, I would say, simply sound bites..., nothing more. And, as we all know from the MSM, sound bites provide precious little in the way of truth, in and of themselves. We’ve all heard them, in the various political discussions. A sound bite is worth — ummm...., well..., probably not too much, actually, if someone doesn’t have an understanding of the subject at hand.
And in this case, the “subject at hand” is the fact that Romney is a member of a non-Christian cult group, and that does not bode well for a Presidential candidate. Someone might ask why. Well, in this particular case, having to do with Mormonism, that’s because besides the fact that iMormonism doesn’t teach the basic, historic and foundational doctrines of Christianity — Mormonism goes further than that. It tries (in its public PR campaign) to deceive the public into thinking that they are simply “another Christian denomination” among many. And that’s where it’s totally false.
They (i.e., the Mormons) actually know this, because they’re very well aware that they do not teach the basic, historic and foundational doctrines of Christianity. In fact, they’re fairly proud of the fact that they have “restored the true Gospel” (as they would say) and that the current-day “Christian churches” are actually teaching “doctrines of man” (as opposed to those from god [again, as they want to put it]).
However, they don’t make that clear “up front” — but rather, want to have the general public think that they are really teaching Christianity. What it turns out to be is so far from — and deviant from Christianity, that it’s *totally unrecognizable* (at all) from Christianity.
An example of how “many more words” can illustrate the facts of the matter, much better than a “sound bite” can — is the following. I supply a few examples of how *deviant* Mormonism is from basic, historic and foundational Christianity. [I supplied it elsewhere, but not on this thread; and I include it here for the benefit of the many readers...]
—
One example is one teaching (from Mormonism) — that Satan is the spirit brother of Jesus. That is easily verified by anyone who wants to check it out. Christian teaching and doctrine totally *rejects* that (as the Bible teaches something *totally different*). However Mormons teach (and assert) that it is true (i.e., that Jesus is the spirit brother of Satan).
Christianity teaches and has for its doctrines that Satan was created an angel — while Jesus (as the Son of God, and one part of the Trinity) was never created or born, in His divine nature. He (Jesus) is a being that is *not* (and never was) in the same class, status or being as Satan, because Satan had a “beginning” and Jesus, as the Son of God, never had a beginning, was never born, and has always been the same uncaused and forever-existent being, and one part of the Trinity, existing outside of time and matter.
In fact, Christianity teaches that Jesus, in his forever-pre-existent divine nature, existing before the creation of the world and universe and before “time and matter”, as the uncaused being, one part of the Trinity — was the one who actually “created” Satan, as an angel, in the beginning. Thus, Jesus in his divine nature is the uncaused and forever-pre-existent being of the Trinity — and He created Satan, who (himself) “had a beginning”.
Thus, Satan and Jesus are not even related in the *least* (not even in the slightest degree), either here (or “there”) or in this time frame or in any time frame, in the past or at any point in time.
Another example of the deviant teachings and doctrines of Mormon is regarding God, the Father. They say he has the appearance of a man (you know..., like two arms, two legs, a body, head, fingers, etc... [all the stuff that a man has]).
And, Christianity *rejects* that as not taught from the Bible, and is a *deviant* teaching — totally in opposition to what Christianity teaches. Christianity teaches that God the Father is not like a man, but is spirit only, *not* having the appearance of a man (or the various and miscellaneous body parts of a man). And Christianity teaches (and has for its foundational doctrines) that God the Father has *never been a man* at any time.
Only Jesus (as one part of the Trinity), in the “incarnation” took on the form of a man, in full conjunction with His diving nature (that divine nature that was never born, never “caused, never having a beginning, being forever *self-existent*).
The “human nature” of Jesus, in His “incarnation” was born, and thus, Jesus, is both fully divine (having always pre-existed — and — was born (had a “beginning”), in the incarnation (in His human form) — both natures being fully integrated, and not diminished one with the other. This is Christian teaching and doctrine and Christianity totally rejects Mormon teaching.
And thus, with this doctrine and teaching, which is not dependent on either you or me — we find that Christianity finds Mormon teaching and doctrine totally *deviant* from what Christianity teaches and what Christianity has for doctrines.
AND, another *deviant teaching* is that we find that Mormons teach that God the Father had sexual relations with Mary — and “additionally” that Mary was the *wife* of God the Father — and she conceived in the normal manner as she would with any man (in the same manner it would happen “as if” another man had sexual relations with her).
We see a quote from Mormon teachings... “The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated in the capacity of husband and wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully........He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary IN THE CAPACITY OF A HUSBAND, and beget a Son.......Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time and eternity, we are not informed. It may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in this mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity.”
Apostle Orson Pratt, “The Seer,” Oct. 1853, p. 158).
THEREFORE, with *many words* (yes, indeed, many words to your few words — without a doubt) — we are able to *demonstrate* that the Mormon teachings and doctrines (of just the examples mentioned here) are *deviant* from the basic, historic and foundational teachings and doctrines of Christianity.
Now — you say that the “fewer words” the better. WELL..., that is *very true* for someone who wants to *deceive the public*. The fewer words serves that purpose very well. You can’t examine anything; you can’t discuss anything; you’re left with questions and no answers.... LOL...
So, sure — for you — the fewer words spoken about the deviant doctrines of Mormonism *is better* — without a doubt.
BUT, for Christians, who are maintaining the true doctrines of the basic, historic and foundational faith of Christianity, given from the time of the Apostles — the more words are better. They make people realize that — yes indeed — Mormonism does teach deviant doctrines from Christianity and that it’s totally unrecognizable as any form of Christianity.
Regards,
Star Traveler
As for me, I know I'll hear, "Well done . . . ."