Posted on 11/14/2007 8:28:07 AM PST by fortcollins
You are very detailed in your critical analysis of them. Was I right in my description of them: that they reminded me of the characters in the movie: Pleasantville? How do you compare them to the Jehovah Witness and the Seventh Day Adventist?/Just Asking - seoul62........
Sounds like: "We don't want to hear any more from you!"
“Correct. Martin Harris and another “witness” say they saw them with ‘eyes of faith.’”
I was quoting the person I responded to. That was not my question about no one ever seeing them. And no, they did not say with the “eyes of faith,” but that they saw them in actuality. Read their own statement. They and the other 11 who saw them saw and handled them as well. This wasn’t some mental conjuration as you’re trying to make out: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss
Wrong. I was a church member in good standing for about 10 years, my good Bro.
It was some of the docturnal weirdness that prompted me to investigate beyond the “party line”. Once I began looking deeper into FACTS, it became abundantly clear that it was a complete ruse.
So, I know of what I speak and don’t do so half-brained and off the cuff.
Here’s a good question for you: What is the source of the Book of Abraham?
Here’s another: What exactly was that little hub-bub about the Kinderhook Plates?
No, they are not Christian and for years they made that claim. They SAY they believe in Jesus, the son of God, but the problem is that God the Father of the bible and God the Father of Mormonism are very different. The Almight Creator God of the bible and in Christianity has always existed and has never and never will change. He created ALL things, visible and invisible.
The mormon god, was once a man on another planet somewhere with some hokey name and became a "god" and then created earth, had a son named Jesus, etc... So when they say that the believer that Jesus is the son of god, it is not the same as the Christian Son of God.
Different gods = different faiths.
John 10
30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Really do not know much about the JWs or the SDAs.
They are very nice folks, I will say that, just a little misguided in their beliefs.
South Park rocks. Good one. LOL
I'll answer this with a few distinct posts:
Simple: LDS leaders' historical role models (former LDS leaders) and the LDS god all have exhibited examples that it's OK to flip-flop on key social issues and the underlying theology of those. Having seen that's it's "OK" to do this, some (like Mitt) follow suit.
I call this the "Gumby" pattern. Let's first look at Mitt's "gumbility" (gumby flexibility). And then let's see what LDS role models he had where this kind of "gumbility" was perfectly fine:
Romney was against legal fake marriage ("gay marriage") while being for legal fake marriage (civil unions and dometic partnerships).
Romney underwent a pro-life "conversion" in Nov 04 only to be forcefully "pro-choice" at a press conference in May 05.
In '94 in 2 back-to-back sentences, Romney spoke about the rights of the Boy Scouts of America to determine its own policy, and in the very next breath say that the Boy Scouts should be open to people of any "sexual orientation."
Romney was twice endorsed by the Log Cabin Club of MA only now to have ads run against him by the Log Cabin Club. Romney was in favor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act before he was 'agin' it.
Romney came alongside Catholic social services to help them keep homosexuals from adopting thru their agency before telling them that "No...can't help you."
Romney was in favor of embryonic stem cell research and then underwent a "conversion." He was in favor of Roe until he was against it.
Now, how may have the evolution of Mormon theology influenced the evolution of Romney's theologically laced social stances?
Example 1: The Book of Mormon was anti-polygamy; but then its original prophet WAS a polygamist (along with many to follow); but then the LDS church cracked down on polygamy; but then polygamy is still supposedly being practiced forever in the celestial kingdom (IOW, "right now"--as much as "eternity" can be "now").
Example 2: LDS leaders said black skin was a "curse" and prevented blacks from the priesthood. Then they changed their mind in 1978.
Example 3: LDS were largely anti-slavery in history. But then you get curious pro-slave owner "Scriptural" passages like Doctrine & Covenants 134:12.
Example 4: Except for the doctrine of grace and some others, just about all of the major distinctions between LDS & the historic Christian faith doesn't even come from the Book of Mormon. What that means is that LDS theology itself "evolved" (one God in BoM; multiple gods later...no priesthood in BoM; priesthood later; no created God in BoM; LDS god a created God later; no 3 degrees of heaven in BoM; 3 degrees later; no baptism for dead or geneology works or temple works in BoM; all of that later...I could on and on)
Example 5: LDS position on abortion. If you read the LDS position on abortion (particularly the one I've seen written for LDS bishops), it initially comes across as "pro-life." But as you read it carefully, you realize that the holes in this cheese makes you ask, "Where's the cheese?"
I mean there's an exception for rape. An exception for generic "health." (And guess who gets to define "health"?--that's right, the abortionist). An exception for if you pray to God about it and then you make God an accessory to murder by saying, "He answered 'Yes'." An exception for life of the mother...
Conclusion: When folks point to Gumby Romney waffling on this or that, I guess I have to ask, "What's the big deal?" (That's what LDS leaders have done from the get-go)
it is not how you look that makes u a cult - it is what u believe.
The Kinderhook Plates thing has been totally disproven. You were duped. You dumped your covenants because of a lie that’s had more holes shot through it than Bonnie and Clyde’s car? See below for just how thoroughly this thing has been debunked.
And I’m a convert to the church who prayed to know whether it is true. My witness is of God. Yours is of your worldy studies, likely to justify not having to live the church’s strict standards. You rely on the arm of man if that’s your wish. I’ll rely on a witness from God.
Now back to the Kinderhook plates, from Wikipedia:
some authors differ on the validity of the statement in the History of the Church, Diane Wirth, writing in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon (4: 210), discredits the DHC account by writing: “Joseph Smith’s supposed statement that the Kinderhook plates were authentic and that they were the ‘records of the descendants of Ham,’ came from the journal of William Clayton, who wrote in the first person, as though from the mouth of Joseph Smith. A first-person narrative was apparently a common practice of this time period when a biographical work was being compiled. Since such words were never penned by the Prophet, they cannot be uncritically accepted as his words or his opinion.”
Latter-day Saint apologist Jeff Lindsay also notes that “The earliest known reference… to the Kinderhook plates as a fraud is in a private letter from W.P. Harris dated April 25, 1855, a letter which was not discovered and made known until 1912. … Another man who claimed to be in on the hoax, W. Fugate, wrote an affidavit in 1879 claiming it was a fraud. Both of these sources are puzzling. If Joseph fell for Fugate’s trap in 1843, why did he wait 36 years to announce it? Why did he wait until after the deaths of the other 8 men he claimed to work with on the Kinderhook hoax? Likewise, if Harris’s 1855 letter is authentic, why did he wait 12 years to write down that he had exposed Joseph Smith? If nine men had achieved their goal and successfully proven in 1843 that Joseph Smith could fall for a clumsy hoax, you can bet that nearly all of them would have been making it known far and wide right away - not years after Joseph had died. It would have been in publications, letters, newspapers, all over the place. But nothing is in the record until many years later. It really doesn’t make any sense” [3].
As a result opinions continue to differ on whether or not Joseph Smith examined and commented on the plates.
The Kinderhook Plates were presumed lost, but for decades The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints published facsimiles of them in its official History of the Church — pointing to them as evidence that ancient Americans wrote on metal plates. The LDS Church acknowledged the plates as a hoax in 1981, and makes no attempt at defending their authenticity. They also make note that there is no proof that Joseph Smith made any attempt to translate the plates. “There is no evidence that the Prophet Joseph Smith ever took up the matter with the Lord, as he did when working with the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham.”[4]
Not as Christians do. I will not upon my death become a god of another “earth”. I will reside in Heaven in the presences of God.
Mormons do not believe they are saved by grace alone either or they would not be required to do good works and use those works in their salvation equation. This comes from Sandra Tanner great grandaughter of Brigham Young. Check out her writings about Mormonism and what is really is.
Point 1: Religion IS NOT a qualification for public office; but it's certainly is one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc.
Point 2: If we agreed that a candidate belongs to the most deceptive cult in the world, then certainly that candidate's vulnerability to deception in the most important area of his life--his faith--serves as an indicator that he/she might be more easily deceived in public policy issues. "Vulnerability to deception" belongs on a character checklist!
Point 3: Other-worldly commitments (faith) is a character issue! There's no way around this realization! To try to extract such other-worldly commitments from character is simply not possible. Time & time again folks try to hermetically seal "faith" & "religion" away from the public square as if folks checked their faith at the door or as if folks were neatly cut-up pie pieces. (Just try telling any voter that he should never weigh "character" into his/her voting-decision considerations).
Point 4: (This especially applies to POTUS and may or may not apply to all races): Bill Clinton was a presidential role-model disaster for our young generation re: the scandal. Any president the voting block elevates to the highest role model position in our land accords the highest vote of respectability to the public aspects of what that person stands for. If that person, for example, is a neatly tucked-away communist who's adopted a mask of "family values," & we elect him president, we are telling our kids that communism is OK to emulate. Furthermore, we are handing proselytizing fuel to communists everywhere. It would fuel their door-to-door boldness and other aggressive campaigns to be able to say, "See. Our respectable Communist leader holds the highest office in the land. Come study what helped make the man he is today!"
Point 5: (Not sure if this applies beyond POTUS). The Bible shows that true successful leadership in public office is done by those who fear the the true Lord & who do not 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" just like the soup kitchen down the street. History (biblical & otherwise) shows that the more pagan or counterfeit god that a leader holds, 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 God's resources; & a nation may suffer for that.
Point 6: Let's say the candidate is not a closet communist but rather an open doctrinaire communist. He comes to me (let's say I'm a successful businessman who has benefitted from capitalism) & says: "You are an apostate from Marx. Every capitalistic creed is an abomination before the sovereign state. Your capitalistic leaders are corrupt. There are only two economic systems: the system of the devil (if he exists), capitalism; and the perfect ideal system, communism. I can expect your vote, then?"
Now ya wanna explain how the above is any different than a doctrinaire Mormon who subscribes to the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History, verses 18-19? (LDS cannot just take or leave its "Scripture," ya know...this verse comes from the very foundation of the church--the First Vision of Joseph Smith). Any true-believing LDS candidate who approaches us historic Christians is saying: "You are an apostate; I am a restorationist built upon the complete ashes of your faith. Your creeds--all of them--are an abomination before God. Your leaders are corrupt. As it says in the Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi, there's only two churches...Ours, the Church of the Lamb; and yours, the Church of the devil. Now, that I've properly inspired you, Mr. Joe Voter, I can expect your vote on Tuesday, then?"
Point 7: Taking this voter alienation into consideration (based upon common polls), & taking the MSM onslaught into consideration in '08, a smart voter MUST consider candidate viability. Come '08, we'll see MSM questions like, "Do you believe you will be a god? Do you believe conservative voters from other churches are 'apostates?' Do believe that although polygamy is no longer practiced on earth, it's being practiced at now & for eternity in another dimension known as the celestial kingdom?"
Point 8: (related to Point 6 & applicable only to POTUS):
If I...
...(a) was a POTUS candidate from a commonly regarded "cultic group"; and
...(b) mislabel 75% of my voting base's primary faith tenets & claims as mere "apostate" status (Note: 75% of people claim to be "Christians" in the more mainline/Protestant/Catholic sense--& frankly, this % is higher in the Republican party)
Then...
Conclusion: I not only show open disdain for my voting base, but betray my ability to inspire confidence in my ability to accurately define a major world religion. If I cannot accurately define a major world religion, what confidence do I inspire re: my ability to handle national security issues, terrorist issues, & negotiation issues pertaining to another world religion like Islam?
Welcome to FreeRepublic. Are you an apologist?
John 6
66 ¶ From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
“Is this a rumour or the offical line: the Catholic Church to which I belong, states that the Mormons are a cult, can someone confirm or deny this?”
If you read this thread from an ex-mormon recovery site:
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon457.htm
You will see the typical despair (even suicidal) that is a classic definition of what a cult is.
I’ve asked repeatedly for someone to post a website devoted to suicidal recovering Lutherans, but no takers yet. (other denominations will also suffice to prove the point).
Your apologist line is laughable.
Totally disproven by whom? An LDS scholar?
William Clayton spent nearly all his time with JS. It’s funny how some of his writings are perfectly acceptable and fine to the church, but when they stray from the party line, heavens they must be in error.
Dude, if you bothered to dig and read and think, you’d understand. But, because of some ill-timed indigestion (burning on your bosum), you’ve been duped.
An orthodox Jewish believer will call upon the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob during a crisis and daily guidance beyond that.
Faith affiliations are not the only consideration. As you pointed out re: her Methodist ties, Bill Clinton was a Little Rock Southern Baptist at one point. Obviously, Clinton's Southern Baptist ties could be weighed distinctly than, say, Huckabee's Southern Baptist ties.
Positions on social issues, character, etc. are, of course, necessary to consider.
Are you from FARMS by any chance?
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.