Posted on 07/09/2011 6:52:15 PM PDT by T.L.Sink
Polls show there's an anti-Mormon bias among voters - especially Democrats, more than a quarter of whom say they wouldn't vote for a Mormon. But this video of a Memphis Fox affiliate ridiculing Mitt Romney about his religion is a real wake-up call [video]. The whole news segment appears to be about Mormonism and the 2012 election, but skip ahead to the 3:20 mark for the worst of it [video].
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
Sorry to hear that. I've enjoyed a number of your frank posts in years past. You are seemingly a more transparent person than many other Lds I've encountered.
...all the way down there at the bottom is Mitt Romney.
Yes, where he belongs; but shooting him up to the top if he gets the nod is no answer, either...in fact, it could be the demise of the GOP! (A political civil war, if you will)
Allow me to post four principles of why some Christians think Romney's religiosity is relevant:
Four Principles as to Why the Religion of a Candidate is to be Seriously Considered:
Question #1 at hand: Is it important to have a POTUS whose God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?
Principle #1: The 'Batphone' Principle: During a Jack Bauer-type of '24' crisis [Let's have a 'Commissioner Gordon' who actually HAS a 'batphone' direct line to the One True God of this world in the midst of crisis situations!]
Question #2 at hand: Is there a transcendent-yet practical-issue beyond faith under consideration here?
Principle #2: We must weigh a candidate's level of vulnerability to deception - for that transcends 'religious' considerations: If a candidate is gullible in the most important area of his life -- his faith – this serves as an excellent indicator of potential other gullibilities
Question #3 at hand: Are we voting for a 'pastor-in-chief' or commander-in-chief?
Principle #3: This question addresses not only the role and identity of the POTUS, but the perceived 'self' identity of the candidate. If a given candidate thinks he's a 'god' or 'would-be' god, he exposes himself as deceived on one of the most basic elemental identity issues you can think of.
If a candidate doesn't even know who he is fundamentally, and inwardly lauds himself as 'divine,' why would we want to reinforce such an idolater who steals glory from the One True God?
Principle #4 also deals with Question #3, but from a distinct angle: Is a POTUS a 'minister' of sorts?
Some would say 'no'; I say 'yes,' and here's why—and this principle also links back to #1:
Even non-religious people tend to at times honor the Bible. The Biblical record shows that true successful leadership in public office is done by those who fear the TRUE Lord -- not by some low-level Mormon god who is part of a great number of Mormon gods...
And these Biblical leaders did not -- or were not to -- worship false gods/idols. The OT is replete w/ such examples. The Israelites had secular kings, not "pastors in chief." But that didn't mean that these kings' ministrations were any less a "ministry." Romans 13 makes it clear that public office is also a "ministry." Those who contend against this are openly militating against this Scripture.
It doesn't mean that public officeholders administrate in a parochial way; it just means that public office is a "ministry of service" like the soup kitchen down the street. History (biblical & otherwise) shows that the more pagan or counterfeit god that a leader adheres to, the more trouble that leader's "exhaust" settles on the people-at-large. Kings & presidents need all the grace, mercy, & guidance possible, since God gets more credit for preserving & directing leaders than we care to give Him credit for. Therefore, one who worships a false god & has no true relationship w/the living God is stifling access to
bttt
Norm to OAV : I think if you were to associate with Mormons and talk with them you’d get a very different (and more accurate) understanding of the faith than you’d get from people who seem make it part of their life’s mission to tear down the church.
- - - - - -
I will agree with Norm that you will get a different story from Mormons but not an accurate one. Ask us ‘antis’ any time to source our statements and we will, the LDS will not.
Stick around OAV and you will see what many other freepers have seen, that it is the so called “anti’s” that quote sources, give documentation and scriptural support. The LDS don’t.
Our mission isn’t to ‘tear down’ Mormonim, it is to tell the truth. The truth that Mormons WON”T tell you. I believe in full disclosure of LDS teaching, something I was not given prior to my joining.
When I converted to Mormonism, I was told one set of beliefs, only after I joined did I learn a whole OTHER set of beliefs, that the missionary discussions were only the ‘tip of the iceberg’ on the LDS Titanic.
Now, this begs the question “Why would anybody lie about their religious beliefs?”
Well, as a Christian, I can’t imagine anyone doing so, but when I was Mormon that is exactly what happened to me and what I was taught to do to others. The phrase the LDS use is “line upon line, precept upon precept”. Mormonism is very Gnostic that way.
Mormons always accuse anyone who speaks out against Mormonism of lying or twisting things. I made the same claims about the ‘anti’s’ when I was Mormon. And then I set out to PROVE the antis were lying. What I discovered was that the LDS church was lying to me, even as a member!
I have this good friend (since Junior High) who is LDS. She knows I was LDS (we went to the same congregation) and she knows I left and that I am now an ‘anti’. She is also one of the few LDS friends who did not automatically dump me when I left Mormonism (shunning is very common). She also knows I would love nothing more than to see her leave Mormonism. The fact that she still speaks to me is testimony of how close we are.
A couple of years ago she started dating a Christian man (grew up Pentecostal) and we discussed her relationship at great lengths.
I approached him as a sister in Christ and told him (I also told her) that I could not support them getting married (they haven’t yet) because he would be unequally yoked, even though she is a long time friend.
She wanted him to take the missonary lessons, in hopes of him converting and we had a very frank conversation about it. I told her it was his decision to take the lessons or not and to convert or not but that SHE needed to make sure he knew ALL the teachings of the LDS church. She need to give full disclosure or I was going to. We discussed specific teachings. She balked and gave me the ‘line upon line’ response to which I rememinded her that he had been lied to in a previous relationship (his ex-wife) and that if she didn’t tell him it was the same as lying and asked her how he would respond if after 6 months in the LDS church, some guy in Priesthood meeting started in about Jesus being married at Cana? Would he feel betrayed. She agreed he would. He ended up not taking the lessons or converting after all. He did his own research and said ‘no way, they aren’t Christians’ even though he is still involved with her.
Now I gave her a chance to be honest with him about LDS teachings before I stepped in and gave him the full story. My goal isn’t to ‘tear down’ as much as it is to get the LDS to stop lying to themselves and everyone else. If they really believe they have the truth, then they need to be honest. If the leadership really believes, then there is NO reason to whitewash their history or make excuses for things. Yet they continue to do so because either it is ALL true or none of it is true.
The thing I think you are missing, Reaganut, is that something like the marriage at Cana being Jesus’ own wedding is not what the LDS Church teaches. Someone may have said it once — offered it as an opinion — but it’s just speculation. Its not in our scriptures and I have never heard it taught in any church meeting in the many years I’ve been a member.
What’s central to our belief is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and our Saviour and that we are called to love, serve and follow Him.
My faith is focused on Christ — with out Him I have no faith and no hope.
Best regards,
Normandy
What’s central to our belief is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God
______________________________
What’s also central to your belief is that Lucifer is equally the Son of God
Not at all, TN. On the contrary.
What’s also central to your belief is that Lucifer is equally the Son of God
Same man-god father, differ5ent woman-goddess mothers...
Both were at that “counsil of moprmon gods to discuss which man-god was gtoing to come down from Kolob to be the “savior” of the world...
It was a toss up between Lucifer and his older brother, the mormon jesus...
apparantly the mormon Lucifer was just as genuinely concertned about the salvation of the world as the mormon jesus was...
As Ricky would say, "Lucy! You got some 'splainin' to do!"
In conclusion let us summarize this grand key, these “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet”, for our salvation depends on them.
1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.
I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true. If we want to know how well we stand with the Lord then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal captain—how close do our lives harmonize with the Lord’s anointed—the living Prophet—President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency.
Ezra Taft Benson
(Address given Tuesday, February 26, 1980 at Brigham Young University)
LDS Apostle Orson Hyde:
We will turn over to the account of the marriage in Cana of Galilee…
Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, and he told them what to do.
Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell me who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified. (Journal of Discourses 2:82. “A lecture by President Orson Hyde, delivered at the General Conference, in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, October 6, 1854.”)
LDS Apostle Orson Pratt taught:
One thing is certain, that there were several holy women that greatly loved Jesus–such as Mary, and Martha her sister, and Mary Magdalene;…now it would be very natural for a husband in the resurrection to appear first to his own dear wives, and afterwards show himself to his other friends. If all the acts of Jesus were written, we no doubt should learn that these beloved women were his wives. (The Seer, Washington D.C. edition, October 1853, page 159)
We have also proved most clearly that the Son followed the example of his Father, and became the great Bridegroom to whom kings’ daughters and many honorable Wives were to be married. We have also proved that both God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ inherit their wives in eternity as well as in time; ..And then it would be so shocking to the modesty of the very pious ladies of Christendom to see Abraham and his wives, Jacob and his wives, Jesus and his honorable wives. all eating occasionally at the same table… (The Seer, Washington D.C. edition, November 1853, page 172)
The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, casing his crucifixion, was evidently based on polygamy,. . .a belief in the doctrine of plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus, and his followers. “ (Journal of Discourses, Vol 1. ppl 345-346)
The LDS Jesus was a Polygamist
In Mormon theology Jesus is not the eternal God second Person of a Triune Being but rather He is “a God,” one of the Gods in the Godhead (for this world). Of course, this teaching: more than one true God, is polytheism to be sure, and hence anti-biblical (cf. Duet. 4:35; 6:4; Isa. 43:10; 44:6, 8).
It should be noted that in LDS theology, to become a “God” the worthy male (NOT females) must first live as a “mortal” on earth and pass through the same ordeals and testing of his second estate on earth, the same as all the Gods have done before him (including the God the Father and Jesus). The first estate for humans was in Heaven as “spirit children” of Elohim (God the Father) and one of His wives). Also, to become a God, Mormons tell us that the worthy male must be married (i.e., sealed for eternity). What is problematic for the Mormon to explain though, is that according to LDS doctrine, Jesus was a God before He came to earth.1 How was Jesus able to beat the LDS system?
Was is true, Mormon missionaries know to carefully avoid their churches teaching that Jesus was a polygamous. He was married to Mary, Martha, and the other Mary. Moreover, Mormons say that Jesus had children by them as well. I will quote from only the General Authorities of the LDS Church whereby removing myself from mere opinion and speculation.
LDS Apostle, Orson Hyde:
Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee...We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into relation whereby he could see his seed [children] before he was crucified (Journal of Discourses, 2:82; emphasis added)
There was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that non less a person that Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha an the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the best of it (Journal of Discourses, 4:259; emphasis added)
LDS Apostle, (and to become the LDS President) Wilford Woodruff:
In the Church councils, it was spoken of: “Joseph F. Smith. . . . He spoke upon the marriage in Cana of Galilee. He thought Jesus was the bridegroom and Mary and Martha the brides (Journal of Wilford Woodruff, July 22, 1883)
LDS Apostle, Jedediah Grant:
The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based upon polygamy, according to the testimony of the philosophers who rose in that age. A belief in doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were Mormons (Journal of Discourses, 1:346; emphasis added)
LDS Apostle, (and prolific writer on LDS doctrine) Orson Pratt:
One thing is certain, that there were several holy women that great loved Jesus, such as Mary and Martha her sister, and Mary Magdalene; and Jesus greatly loved them and associated with the much; and when he arose from the dead, instead of first showing himself to his chosen witnesses, the Apostles, He appeared first to these women, or at least to one of them—namely, Mary Magdalene. Now, it would be very natural for a husband in the resurrection to appear first to his own dear wives, and afterwards show himself to his other friends. If all the acts of Jesus were written, we no doubt should learn that these beloved women were his wives (The Seer, 159).
The thing you are missing Normandy is that the one who was used of God to write most of the New Testament was an "apostle" (Paul) -- and John wrote five books -- and he was also an "apostle."
If an "apostle" offers up a public teaching that is not true (false), then the church body sanctioning that so-called "apostle" has an OBLIGATION to correct false statements so that when people come across them, they are NOT misled!
You strike me as a responsible person. But your cavalier approach to...
...Mormon once-taught, twice-taught, and often-taught concepts...
...concepts that have been jettisoned & are now scattered all over the Mormon landscape...
...reminds me of a babysitter who would let crawling babies wander around junkyards.
...And this stands out in sharp contrast to any air of responsibility -- that you would "Amen" such an approach to spiritual babysitting!
You just don't seemingly "care" as to what spiritual babes & toddlers might "own" as their own because Mormon leaders taught it and didn't retract it; and the Mormon church hasn't retracted it, either.
The tithes of so many Mormons has gone toward the constant support of junkyard theology!
I think it is safe to say that it has been clearly documented that your church taught that the wedding in Cana was that of Jesus.
Your problem is how are YOU going to justify those teachings.
These are not lay people Norm, but teaching with the full authority of their position - and not a single of one them were rebuked for those teachings - not opinions Norm. Read them in context - there is nothing there that lends themselves to even considering it to be 'opinions'.
Yes Norm, by standard accounting this is not "doctrine". But you've been shown that the church HAS taught it.
Finally Norm, the claim that it is their "opinion" has echoed time and again. The course of mormon teachings are littered with former doctrines and teachings now defined as "opinions" or even false doctrines. They were LIVING prophets at the times they gave these sermons Norm (going beyond this subject to the others), if they were alive somehow today would their testimonies be any less viable?????
False teachings given at general conferences reflect what Norm? False teachers.
Apostle Orson Hyde asserted:
It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; ... no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha, and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the least of it.
I will venture to say that if Jesus Christ were now to pass through the most pious countries in Christendom with a train of women, such as used to follow him, ... he would be mobbed, tarred, and feathered, and rode not on an ass, but on a rail....
At this doctrine the long-faced hypocrite and the sanctimonious bigot will probably cry, blasphemy! ... Object not, therefore, too strongly against the marriage of Christ ... (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, pp. 259-60).
I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children.
All that I have to say in reply to that charge is this—they worship a Savior that is too pure and holy to fulfill the commands of his Father. I worship one that is just pure and holy enough “to fulfill all righteousness;” not only the righteous law of baptism, but the still more righteous and important law “to multiply and replenish the earth” (vol. 2, p. 210).
When the “Gentiles” stated that polygamy was one of the “relics of barbarism,” Brigham Young replied: “Yes, one of the relics of Adam, of Enoch, of Noah, of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob, of Moses, David, Solomon, the Prophets, of Jesus, and his Apostles” (vol. 11, p. 328).
On another occasion Young said: “The Scripture says that He, the LORD, came walking in the Temple, with His train; I do not know who they were, unless His wives and children ...” (vol. 13, p. 309).
Essential to Salvation
After a special conference held in 1852, the Mormon church leaders began to devote much of their time to the preaching of polygamy. During the period that the Mormon church was openly practicing polygamy, the leaders of the church were declaring that it was absolutely necessary and essential for exaltation. One woman testified as follows in the Temple Lot Case: “Yes, sir, President Woodruff, President Young, and President John Taylor, taught me and all the rest of the ladies here in Salt Lake that a man in order to be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom must have more than one wife, that having more than one wife was a means of exaltation” (Temple Lot Case, p. 362).
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech9b.htm
In a sermon reported in the church’s Deseret News on August 6, 1862, Brigham Young stated:
Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire.... Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers....
Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord’s servants have always practised it. “And is that religion popular in heaven?” It is the only popular religion there ... (Deseret News, August 6, 1862).
Very interesting. I used to babysit for a Mormon couple. They were very nice to me. Additionally, I know a Mormon man who comes to our Support the Troops rally. There are people here who are claiming to understand Mormonism, because they read about it on the net.
I keep pointing out that Mormonism isn’t running for president. Mitt Romney is. The Founding Fathers said we should never have a faith test for a presidential candidate. If you are in disagreement, then who else should be on that list? Catholics, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, traditional American Indians, etc?
How flamingly snarky of you. I was trying to have a civilized discussion, but there are a few of you who can’t do that. It’s sad when I find those people on this site. You couldn’t see my point if it was printed on the side of a barn. It seems that you and Elsie, and a few others don’t understand that this is not 1844.
Just for giggles, who do you think you would vote for if the vote were today?
So I guess you would exclude Jews, and traditional American Indians, just to name a few. Is that right?
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.