Seven Differences Between Mormonism and Christianity

mormoninfo.org ^

[greyfoxx39]

Introduction

The purpose of this is to let you know seven

differences between Mormonism and traditional

Christianity (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox).

Many would think that Mormonism is simply a part of

Christianity, particularly since they are called “The

Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints”

(emphasis added). The problem is that we, as traditional

Christians, think that Mormonism is teaching another

Jesus than what the Bible teaches (cf. 2 Corinthians

11:3-4, 13-15).

The Seven Differences

1. Mormon scripture teaches that all the various

Christian denominations, particularly the

Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists, are all

considered by Jesus Christ to be “wrong.” When

the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. was questioning,

as a 14-year-old boy, which of these churches to join, he

claimed, “I was answered that I must join none of them, for

they were all wrong; and the Personage who

addressed me said that all their creeds were an

abomination in his sight; that those professors were

all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their

lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for

doctrines the commandments of men, having a form

of godliness, but they deny the power thereof’”

(Joseph Smith--History 1:19, Pearl of Great Price,

emphasis added, cf. 1:9).

“Behold there are save two churches only; the one is

the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the

church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not

to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that

great church, which is the mother of abominations;

and she is the whore of all the earth (1 Nephi 14:10,

Book of Mormon).”

2. Mormon scripture, prophets and apostles teach that

there is more than one god who created this world,

that there are many gods who rule over other worlds,

and that worthy Mormons may one day become gods

themselves. Even though Mormons claim there is only

one God for them, they still believe that the Father,

Son, and Holy Spirit are separate gods who are only

one in their purpose rather than in a personal being

that they share eternally.

Three separate personages--Father, Son, and Holy Ghost-

-comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a

God, it is evident, from this standpoint alone, that a

plurality of Gods exists. To us, speaking in the proper

finite sense, these three are the only Gods we worship.

But in addition there is an infinite number of holy

personages, drawn from worlds without number, who

have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods (Bruce R.

McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 576-7).

“Here, then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true

God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods

yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same

as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from

one small degree to another… until you attain to the

resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in

everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who

sit enthroned in everlasting power (Joseph Smith,

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 346-7).

“As man is God once was, as God is man may be”

(Prophet Lorenzo Snow, The Life of Lorenzo Snow by

Thomas C. Romney, 46).

“And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went

down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods,

organized and formed the heavens and the earth”

(Abraham 4:1, The Pearl of Great Price).

3. Mormon scripture, prophets and apostles teach

that God the Father is an exalted man with flesh

and bones.

“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted

man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! …I say, if

you were to see him today, you would see him like a man

in form--like yourselves in all the person, image, and

very form as a man; ...I am going to tell you how God

came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that

God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea,

and take away the veil, so that you may see” (Smith,

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345).

“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as

man’s” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22).

4. Mormon prophets and apostles teach that God

the Father has at least one wife by which we were

all literally born from as spirit children prior to

coming to this earth. Some of these prophets and

apostles have even taught that Jesus had wives

and children.

“This glorious truth of celestial parentage,

including specifically both a Father and a Mother, is

heralded forth by song in one of the greatest of

Latter-day Saint hymns. O My Father by Eliza R.

Snow, written in 1843 during the lifetime of the

Prophet, includes this teaching:

“ In the heavens are parents single? No; the thought makes reason stare!

Truth is reason, truth eternal, Tells me I’ve a Mother there.

When I leave this frail existence, When I lay this mortal by,

Father, Mother, may I meet you In your royal courts on high?”

(McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 516-7).

“We have now clearly shown that God the Father had

a plurality of wives, one or more being in eternity,

by whom He begat our spirits as well as the spirit of

Jesus His First Born, and another being upon the

earth by whom He begat the tabernacle of Jesus, as

His Only Begotten in this world. 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” (Apostle Orson

Pratt, The Seer, 172).

“When our father Adam came into the garden of

Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and

brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped

to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL,

the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about

whom holy men have written and spoken--He is our

FATHER and our God, and the only God with

whom WE have to do (Prophet Brigham Young,

Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, 50).

NOTE: Most Mormons are unaware that Brigham

Young in fact taught that Adam was the God of this

world. Only members of fundamentalist Mormon groups

(not affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday

Saints) hold to this doctrine today. Regardless of this

identification of God as being Adam, no one denies that

Young believed that God the Father has more than one wife.

5. Mormon prophets and apostles teach that God

the Father had a Father whom He followed as

Jesus had followed Him. This follows from the

preceding points.

“If Abraham reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was

the Son of God, and John discovered that God the

Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may

suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there

ever a son without a father? And where was there

ever a father without first being a son? Whenever

did a tree or anything spring into existence without a

progenitor? And everything comes in this way.

…Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe

that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of

being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the

Bible is full of it.

I want you to pay particular attention to what I am

saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely

in the same way as His Father had done before Him.

As the Father had done before? He laid down His

life, and took it up the same as His Father had done

before” (Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph

Smith, 373).

6. Mormon prophets and apostles teach that there

are many things that Jesus did not create. For

example, He did not create our spirits, nor did He

create Lucifer, nor did He even create the planet

that He was born on as a spirit. The reason for this

is because Mormons believe that Jesus and Lucifer

are literally brothers, and we as humans are all the

younger brothers and sisters of them. We were all

born of heavenly parents, who did the creating work

of their world (not all worlds whatsoever) before we

arrived spiritually in heaven.

“The appointment of Jesus to be the Savior of the

world was contested by one of the other sons of God.

He was called Lucifer, son of the morning. Haughty,

ambitious, and covetous of power and glory, this

spirit-brother of Jesus desperately tried to become the

Savior of mankind” (Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel

through the Ages, 15).

7. Mormon prophets and apostles teach that we

should not pray directly to Jesus. Rather, they can

only pray directly to the Father in the name of Jesus.

Apostle Bruce McConkie said concerning the Father,

“He is the one to whom we have direct access by

prayer, and if there were some need -- which there is

not -- to single out one member of the Godhead, for a

special relationship, the Father, not the Son, would be

the one to choose. Our relationship with the Son is

one of brother or sister in the pre-mortal life.’

Referring to “others who have an excessive zeal,”

McConkie went on to say that they devote themselves to

gaining a special, personal relationship with Christ

that is both improper and perilous. ...Another peril is that those so

involved often begin to pray directly to Christ because of some

special friendship they feel has been developed.

...This is plain sectarian nonsense. Our prayers are

addressed to the Father and to Him only (BYU

Devotional [March 2, 1982], 17, 19 & 20).

A Christian Response

Some Mormons may quibble that some of these

sources are non-scriptural, and are thus simply the

opinions of men with no binding authority. But the Bible

says that if so-called prophets and apostles teach other

gods than what God has already clearly revealed about

Himself, we are to consider them to be false (cf.

Deuteronomy 13:1-5; 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, 13-15; &

Galatians 1:6-9). What difference does it make if the

preceding sources are deemed by the Mormon Church to

be scriptural or not? If this is truly what they taught, then

it seems quite obvious that these individuals are not

teaching the God of the Bible, and thus should be

considered as non-Christian (i.e., they are not following

the true Christ).

Mormons also quibble that the Bible is full of errors

and has been through many a translation such that many

“plain and precious truths” have been left out of the

translation we have today. Thus, Mormons unquestionably

rest their faith in what their church tells them to believe, so

long as they receive affirmation from what is called a

“burning in their bosoms.” Christians, on the other hand,

find no reason to think that many truths have been taken

from Scripture.

Why is it that all the various manuscripts

of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Scriptures, from which

all the various versions come, are remarkably consistent

with each other? Where is all the evidence that these

manuscripts were cut up in such a way so as to delete the

“plain and precious truths” found today in the restored

Mormon Scriptures? Christians find no reason to doubt

the words of the Lord Jesus when He said, “Scripture

cannot be broken” (John 10:35), and “[h]eaven and earth

shall pass away but my words shall not pass away” (Mat.

24:35). It is the word of God, not our “burning in our

bosoms,” that is a light to our path (Psalms 119:105).

The Christian interpretation of the Bible teaches that

there was only one Being (not a team of Gods that formed

a Godhead) who did the creation work of any world in the

entire universe (not some proper subset of it) (Isaiah

43:10; 44:6, 8, 24; 45:12; & 46:9). Of course other “gods”

are mentioned in Scripture, but they are consistently

referred to as false gods or idols that are not gods by nature

(Ps. 96:5; 1 Cor. 8:1-6; & Gal. 4:8).

(Some Mormons have attempted to support their polytheism by likening

themselves to early Christian fathers and other Christian

theologians in their view of the deification of humans. But

the latter still believe in only one true God by nature, and

hold that humans can never attain the unique features of

God like omnipotence, eternality, omnipresence, etc.

Consequently, Christian deification does not teach that

humans can literally become gods. Instead, it teaches that

humans are “deified” in the sense that the Holy Spirit

transforms Christian believers into the image of God,

modeled perfectly in the human nature of Christ, by

endowing them in the resurrection with immortality and

God’s perfect moral character.)

The Bible also teaches that God is not limited to a body

that He needs to become a God. He is too great for a body

(1 Kings 8:27 & Jn. 4:21-24). He is God unchangeably

from everlasting to everlasting (Malachi 3:6 & Ps. 90:2).

This is why God has a completely different nature from

man. He is not a mere man, nor an exalted man, since He

is not a man at all (Hosea 11:9).

The Bible also teaches that Jesus created everything

that was ever created from the beginning of heaven and

earth (Jn. 1:1-3, 14 & Colossians 1:15-18). Hence,

wherever humans or Lucifer were made, they were all

made by Jesus. This is why Christians have no problem

praying to Jesus (cf. Stephen’s prayer in Acts 7:59).

Jesus told us not just to pray to the Father, but to Himself

as well (Jn. 14:14—Greek says, “If you ask me anything

in my name, I will do it”). Whether Jesus is physically

present or not is irrelevant, since He claimed to be with us

always anyway (Mat. 18:20 & 28:20). Though He

became fully man, He has always been fully God and

ought to be treated as such (Jn. 1:1 & 14; 5:18 & 23;

Romans 9:5; Philippians 2:5-10; Col. 2:9; Revelation 1:8,

17-18; & 22:6-20). Since Jesus is the only Son of God

with the nature of God (“only begotten” in Greek means

“one of a kind or genus”), He is God the Son (Jn. 1:18).

More specifically, He is the second person of God. The

Christian God is more than one person; He is actually three

persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who are not unlike

radically connected Siamese twins (compare Isa. 44:24

with Genesis 1:26--the being of God created alone with the

plurality of persons that His being is comprised of). There

was never a time when one of the persons was without the

others. They are eternally distinct persons while eternally

inseparable in being as well as purpose.

Your eternal salvation depends on whether you really

know God or not. Jesus said, “[I]f ye believe not that I am

he, ye shall die in your sins” (Jn. 8:24). Please consider

praying to God (Father, Son, or Holy Spirit), asking Him

to cleanse you from all your sins, particularly of following

another god and another Jesus, and then repent from those

idols by leaving the Mormon Church.

Then please consider committing yourself to a genuinely “Christian”

denomination in order to grow in your new spiritual life.

1. All citations to Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith

use the pre-2002 edition.

R. M. Sivulka

[Elsie]

Jews, atheists, etc. are not Christian. Are they unqualified for a christian vote?

These folks do NOT run around the WORLD; telling everyone who will give them the time of day, that CHRISTIANITY has been corrupted for a LONG time, and only THEIR men, that listen to gods voices in their heads, have the RESTORED christianity, the way it SHOULD be.

Do YOU really want to vote for someone who believes that?

Why?

[greyfoxx39]

Which denomination are you? Would you vote for someone of a different denomination? If yew, why?

Jews, atheists, etc. are not Christian. Are they unqualified for a christian vote? What about Obama and Black Theology? Is THAT Christian?

The US Constitution forbids a religious test. I judge people on their character, not on their nominal religion. Where have I gone wrong

***********************

Jews, atheists, etc. are not Christian. Are they unqualified for a christian vote?

It appears you missed my post Number 174

Speaking for myselfl, if a Jew, atheist, etc. had taken the following oath in a "sacred" religious ceremony consecrating "yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you," to build up a religious organization, only a fool would ignore that when the oath of office for the POTUS would necessarily have to be a secondary vow.

LDS Endowment

Reading further at this link might give you a better idea of Romney's beliefs and how they would affect his governance from the WH.

“You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.

[Elsie]

bttt

[GilesB]

OK, this is a discussion of ISM - I got that. I don’t believe in it, don’t defend it, never have.

However, there is apparently some feeling that this discussion of the ISM, is in truth, an argument against Romney.

Let me ask this plainly - is there concern from the antiMormonISM crowd here that if Romney is elected president that his belief in MormonISM will have some terrible effect on our country (worse than that of a second Obama presidency)? If so, what is that fear, what is the damage that you perceive Romney will visit upon the US? If not, is there some other connection between these discussions and Romney? What is that connection, if it exists?

Now a couple of questions related to your mention of “your” candidate:
Do you believe Virgil Goode is a viable candidate, in the sense that there is a possiblity that he could win?
If not, do you understand the very real fear many of us have of a second Obama term, that far exceeds our very real concerns (doubts) about Romney?
Do you understand how a vote for Goode (or not voting at all) helps Obama get closer to another term?

If you understand and acknowledge these fears, then you will understand the passion with which your choice of candidate is met - not from “Mittbots” as you so charmingly phrased it in a previous encounter, but from those of us who desperately want Obama defeated. This in not a choice of the lesser of two evils, we see it as a choice between evil, and not as good as we would like.

Do you contend that? Do you believe Romney is as evil a choice as Obama, or worse? If so, why? Is it related to his belief in the LDS teachings??

[greyfoxx39]

Do you contend that? Do you believe Romney is as evil a choice as Obama, or worse? If so, why? Is it related to his belief in the LDS teachings??

If you do not understand mormonism, you will not understand that Romney will act very much like Obama...there will only be a change of masters. The policies will be much the same, with the beneficiaries of largesse changing from the present ones to the ones chosen by Romney under the influence of the leaders and power brokers of the mormon church. There is NO morality in either man.

Romney is despicable because of his pro-abortion stance, which is approved by the mormon church. He is unfit for governance because of his lack of discernment in following Joseph Smith.

If you are the least bit interested in my fears of Romney as a mormon POTUS, you can spend some time in following my posting history and reading the articles I have posted regarding the arcane beliefs and take some time to read through this site: Especially the "Law of Consecration"

Be aware that Romney does not just give lip service to this "law", nor to Second Anointing....this ceremony promises that the couple will be guaranteed exaltation (salvation) for eternity for having been a "faithful servant" to the mormon church.

Given your comment to me earlier, "gf - are you an unmitigated fool?" this will be my last comment to you.

[GilesB]

Perfectly fine that you will not respond - you answered all of my questions. Nothing more I would want to ask.

[Elsie]

[Elsie]

[Colofornian]

Do you believe Virgil Goode is a viable candidate, in the sense that there is a possiblity that he could win?

A question for you (& others) who wax utilitarianism -- until it's not very convenient to continue doing so, that is.

What do I mean?

Well, as you know, our POTUS election is unlike other elections -- in that we have a state-by-state electoral vote to consider.

What does that practically mean?

It means that if you live on the Left Coast (Washington, Oregon, and CA have the three highest unchurched rates, respectively) -- it won't matter that you cast a vote for loser Romney. So tell us, oh pragmatic one, Do you believe Mitt Romney is a viable candidate in Washington state? In Oregon state? In California? In Washington DC? In Maryland? In NY? In NJ? A viable candidate in those states "in the sense that there is a possiblity that he could win?"

If so, upon what basis do you make such claims?

My opinion is -- NO, Mitt Romney is NOT a viable candidate in those 6 states, DC & other likely states as we move closer to November.

According to YOUR line of thinking then...why should ANYONE who lives in those states/district bother to vote for Romney?

If you cannot address this, then stop the nonsensical inconsistency if you WiLL not apply it to Romney in given states.

[ClearCase_guy]

I think your point is a good one.

I live in MA. In the recent state primary, Romney got 70% of the GOP vote. But anyone who thinks he will carry the state in Nov is crazy. He's not a viable candidate here.

I'll vote for Virgil Goode. I think anyone in MA who is registered as a Republican should do the same. Goode isn't "viable", but he's not as bad as either Obama or Romney. Why wouldn't I vote for the best man?

[Colofornian]

The Constitution outlaws religious tests for public office. Are you using your own religious test to decide how to vote? (Jabba the Nutt, post #172)

The US Constitution forbids a religious test. [Jabba the Nutt, post #198]

Ya know, JTN...I once read an Lds news release that said: The framers of our constitution included a provision that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” (Article VI). That constitutional principle forbids a religious test as a legal requirement...

This release was part of a discussion by Lds "apostle" Dallin Oaks.

I'm afraid you -- Jabba the Nutt -- like Mr. Oaks...misconstrues candidacy eligibility issues.

All the constitution says is that an eligible candidate cannot be kept from running on religious test grounds.

Ya know, even Mr. Oaks recognized how ludicrous some of his rhetoric was sounding and needed to offset it a bit with a qualifier: "...but it of course leaves citizens free to cast their votes on the basis of any preference they choose."

So...here's a Constitutional "primer" for you so that you don't keep exporting confusion to others:

Point 1- RELIGION: Religion IS NOT a qualification or disqualification for public office; but it's certainly one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, present position statements & rampant inconsistency of past position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc. Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution is aimed at the candidate (must be of a certain age and must have resided in our country for a certain number of years) and the government so that religion does not become a disqualification to keep somebody otherwise eligible for running for public office. Article VI, section 3, is not aimed at the voter. Otherwise, voters would have to 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates.

POINT 2 - ELIGIBILITY: Newsflash!! Every person on the ballot, & even most write-in candidates, have proper "qualifications" to not be excluded from office consideration (based upon religious grounds). Of course, millions of us have the "qualifications" to be considered a potential POTUS & shouldn't be excluded outright from a ballot because of the religion we hold! Nobody has a "Religious Ineligibility" tattoo on their forehead!

POINT 3- BOTTOM LINE: You don't, JTN, really want to join Lds "apostles" in their confusion by emphasizing words similar to "qualifications" (language within the Constitution) with words like "qualities." (language that’s NOT in the Constitution)...do you?

I focus on what voters base their votes on in the "real world": Qualities

Otherwise, Article VI says absolutely...
...nothing...
....nada...
...zero...
...about how voters must weigh--or not weigh--the "qualities" of a candidate...

Nowhere does Article VI say that voters MUST 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates!

"Qualifications" have to do with what gets a man on a ballot. "Qualities" has to do with who gets elected.

(Even 94-95% of Mormons -- most voting upon the fellow personal "qualities" of a candidate like Romney -- can tell you that!)

Btw, JTN, why aren't you lecturing Lds voters if anywhere from 88% to 95% of Mormons will only vote for a Mormon?

(For some reason, the "Article 6 Religious Test" lecture tour never seems to hit Utah, Southwest Wyoming or Southern Idaho)

[GilesB]

First - I take exception to your combative tone and unwarranted derision of a fair question, asked without rancor - BUT, since I am not one of the RF anointed, I'll accept my beatings with minimal moaning (or “whining” as gf likes to term it).

Second - you make a valid point, albeit a bit aggressively - unnecessarily so in my opinion. Third - yes, I believe there is an outside chance that Romney could win Washington, less chance that he will win Oregon - but still a sliver of a chance. Very unlikely that he will win California, maybe possible with some kind of miracle. I see the dissatisfaction with Obama becoming so large that a miracle could happen.

Might I suggest a better way to frame your post:
“I live and vote in state ABC, and there is very little likelihood that Romney will win that state. Therefore, my vote for Goode will neither help Obama, nor hurt Romney in any meaningful way, but it WILL help convey a message to the GOP (much like WV voters did to the dems) that I am very dissatisfied with their business as usual.”

See there? You can make a valid point without making erroneous assumptions about people, or being needlessly abrasive. If, however, you enjoy confrontation and being abrasive, carry on!

[Colofornian]

Let me ask this plainly - is there concern from the antiMormonISM crowd here that if Romney is elected president that his belief in MormonISM will have some terrible effect on our country (worse than that of a second Obama presidency)? If so, what is that fear, what is the damage that you perceive Romney will visit upon the US?

Romney would be a "puppet" in the hands of a Mormon "prophet" reigning from Salt Lake City. The REAL power wouldn't be in the White House, but rather SLC!

Past statements from Mormon leaders show their lust for political power...(That's enough for me re: a concern)

Lds Leader	Chronological 'Prophet' or Fundamental # (or Other Title)	Overlap Areas: Could the President of the U.S. become a 'puppet' to an Lds 'Prophet?' (The Lds Prophets -- in their own words)
John Taylor	Lds 'Prophet' #3	“The Almighty has established this kingdom with order and laws and every thing pertaining thereto…[so] that when the nations shall be convulsed, we may stand forth as saviours…and finally redeem a ruined world, not only in a religious but in a political point of view.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p. 342, April 13, 1862)
Orson Hyde	President of the Lds Quorum of the 12 Apostles for 28 years (1847-1875)	“What the world calls ‘Mormonism’ will rule every nation...God has decreed it, and his own right arm will accomplish it. This will make the heathen rage.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 53)
Heber J. Grant	Lds 'Prophet' #7	"Elder Marion G. Romney recalled the counsel of President Heber J. Grant: 'My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.' Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, 'But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray'" (in Conference Report, Oct. 1960, p. 78)." Cited in Official Lds publication Search the Commandments: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, p. 209 (1984)
Harold B. Lee	Lds 'Prophet' #11	...President Harold B. Lee said: 'We must learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through his prophet, '...as if from mine own mouth...(D&C 21:4-5)...You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself..." Cited in official Lds publication Remember Me: Relief Society Personal Study Guide I, p. 27 (1989)
Spencer Kimball	Lds 'Prophet' #12	"President Spencer W. Kimball said: '...We deal with many things which are thought to be not so spiritual; but all things are spiritual with the Lord, and he expects us to listen, and to obey..." (In Conference Report, Apr. 1977, p. 8; or Ensign, May 1977, p. 7) Cited in official Lds publication Come, Follow Me: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide 1983, p.12 (1983)
What about Marion G. Romney, cousin to Mitt's father?	Who was he in Lds hierarchy? (Title: 'President' - Top 3 of church as 2nd counselor to both #11 & #12 Lds 'prophets')	"Elder Neal A. Maxwell has said: 'Following the living prophets is something that must be done in all seasons and circumstances. We must be like President Marion G. Romney, who humbly said, '..I have never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional, and political life' (Conference Report, April 1941, p. 123). There are, or will be moments when prophetic declarations collide with our pride or our seeming personal interests...Do I believe in the living prophet even when he speaks on matters affecting me and my specialty directly? Or do I stop sustaining the prophet when his words fall in my territory? if the latter, the prophet is without honor in our country! (Things As They Really Are, p. 73). Cited in official Lds publication, Search the Commandments: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, pp. 275-276 (1984)
Ezra Taft Benson	Lds 'Prophet' #13	Benson speech given 2/26/80 @BYU. Summary: “…remember, if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet…” (See excerpts re: 3 of 14 'fundamentals' below) Source: Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet
Benson (cont'd)	Fundamental #5	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. (My Q: Ya hear that Mitt Romney?)
Benson (cont'd)	Fundamental #9	9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual. (My Q: Still listening, Mitt?)
Benson (cont'd)	Fundamental #10	10. The prophet may advise on civic matters. (My Q: What say ye Mitt?)
B.H. Roberts	LDS Historian and Seventy. Note: Roberts was an elected Democratic Congressman from Utah in 1898 -- but was NEVER seated by Congress because of grass roots uproar vs. Roberts, who took a THIRD simultaneous wife in the early 1890s. Grass roots America collected 7 MILLION signatures on 28 banners and presented them to Congress...in pre-mass media 1800s!	“[T]he kingdom of God... is to be a POLITICAL INSTITUTION THAT SHALL HOLD SWAY OVER ALL THE EARTH; TO WHICH ALL OTHER GOVERNMENTS WILL BE SUBORDINATE AND BY WHICH THEY WILL BE DOMINATED.” The Rise and Fall of Nauvoo, 1900, p. 180
Mitt Romney as POTUS???	Aside from above prophetic impositions, why would Mitt not only honor what these 'prophets' have spoken, but what a future Lds 'prophet' may tell him to do?	The Law of Consecration Oath Mitt Romney has sworn in the Mormon temple (done before marriage/sealing in temple): "You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the law of consecration as contained in this, the book of Doctrine and Covenants [he displays the book], in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and EVERYTHING with which the Lord has blessed you, or WITH which he MAY bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion." Source: What is an LDS Church/Mormon temple marriage/sealing? [Q: Please define 'Zion': The LDS PR Web site (lds.org) defines its primary meaning: "membership in the [LDS] church."]

[Colofornian]

Might I suggest a better way to frame your post: “I live and vote in state ABC, and there is very little likelihood that Romney will win that state. Therefore, my vote for Goode will neither help Obama, nor hurt Romney in any meaningful way, but it WILL help convey a message to the GOP (much like WV voters did to the dems) that I am very dissatisfied with their business as usual.” See there? You can make a valid point without making erroneous assumptions about people, or being needlessly abrasive. If, however, you enjoy confrontation and being abrasive, carry on!

You have a rather poor assumption you project onto me...that I don't want to "hurt Romney"...

Frankly, I'd like ALL liberals to be "hurt."

Frankly, I'd like ALL socialistic healthcare pioneers to be "hurt."

Frankly, I'd like ALL big govt types to be "hurt."

Frankly, I'd like ALL pro-aborts to be "hurt."

[Colofornian]

...you make a valid point, albeit a bit aggressively - unnecessarily so in my opinion. Third - yes, I believe there is an outside chance that Romney could win Washington, less chance that he will win Oregon - but still a sliver of a chance. Very unlikely that he will win California, maybe possible with some kind of miracle.

#1...Keep in mind that when I speak, I am also addressing those who aggressively question Virgil Goode...it's not always easy on threads to distinguish the aggressive questioners of Virgil Goode from those less/not so.

#2...You concede that Romney can't win in CA or Oregon -- and perhaps other states.

Will you now then withdraw the question you asked about Virgil Goode?

Or, if not, will you, in the interest of consistency, start asking potential Romney voters residing in CA & OR if they he is a viable candidate there?

[GilesB]

I was around, although very young, during Kennedy’s campaign. It is startling how much this sounds like some folks back then expressing their fear of the RCC and the Pope.

I disagree with almost everything JFK stood for and did - but I don’t begin to believe that he was directed to do those things by the Vatican.

[GilesB]

No - I am not directed by your demands on the questions I ask. You are free to ask whatever you will, you are not free to demand I ask as you would like.

I do not concede that Oregon is not possible - simply much less likely.

My question about Goode stands - the reason for the question was to determine if the poster actually believed there was a chance - the better to ascertain the reasons for voting for him.

Finally - no, I will not ask the Romney voters the same question. Like it or not, Virgil Goode is an outlier, so I am interested in the reasons people would choose to vote for him.

[GilesB]

Be advised - the members of the RF clique are able to denegrate at will, as long as they pose their ad hominum attacks as questions (I was so informed by the moderator). You and I, however, not being members in good standing of the club, will be closely monitored.

The term “bigoted” can fairly be applied to certain statements - BUT honestly recognizing and naming such statements is VERBOTEN! The statement being less offensive than the label, of course!

You have doubtlessly recognized the agenda here. It seems that any reluctance to attack the ISM will be met by a mob-attack denouncing you as a mormon defender or mormon lover, or a “Mittbot” (alhough, remember, they are only attacking the IISM). Take a look at posts #213 and #205 - they express, with clarity, the lay of this particular land.

I don’t know if you noticed another earlier post where one poster called out to the apparent leader of the pack that so-and-so was saying such-and-such and, it was clearly implied, needed a proper, verbal beat-ddown.

While professing a form of open debate, the practice here is far from it.

[Colofornian]

, Virgil Goode is an outlier, so I am interested in the reasons people would choose to vote for him.

Like it or not, Romney is an outlier in OR, CA, MD, NY, CT, NJ, WA, DC, and even his home territory -- New England states. Therefore, I am interested in the reasons people living in those states would choose to vote for him.

For you, your curiosity about outlier candidates seems to be intentionally limited...wouldn't have something to do with the reality that you're a Romney supporter, would it? (Iow...a biased perspective)

[Colofornian]

I don’t begin to believe that he was directed to do those things by the Vatican...

Find me a Pope during American times who said ANYTHING similar to ANY of the quotes in that chart.

It is startling how much this sounds like some folks back then expressing their fear of the RCC and the Pope.

Fear? (No) Realistic appraisal and concern? (Yes)

Many of the people commenting upon the Vatican had ZERO indicators to base their concerns upon, making them unwarranted.

When we ALREADY have comments that politically overreach from Lds leaders, takes quite a bit of effort to intentionally ignore them as automatically being non-applicable.