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

[Colofornian]

The term “bigoted” can fairly be applied to certain statements - BUT honestly recognizing and naming such statements is VERBOTEN!

The irony we see on these threads from the self-appointed "Bigot patrol" (a loose-knit term I've applied to other posters) is that they tend to show themselves when they are rather offended -- intolerant if you will -- about certain religious comments.

Does that apply to you?

Are you intolerant of certain religious comments made within this thread?

If so, how is your intolerance to be differentiated from what you deem as religious "bigotry?"

You see, from my perspective about these religious debates, is that those who accuse others of religious tolerance -- all while being religiously intolerant of others' religious comments -- makes it all appear to be rather self-refuting.

[GilesB]

“...Romney is an outlier....” - only if you choose to warp the meaning.

“Reading my mind” is against the rules here - shame, shame.

I didn’t realize that asking a very simple, very easy question was so fraught with deeper meaning - I asked the question because I was interested in the answer; or, at least, I thought I did. Maybe a visit to the shrink is in order.

[Colofornian]

Was there not poligamy in the Old Testament?

In the Old Testament, God instructed Hosea to marry a prostitute (Gomer) who kept her "cottage industry" going post-marriage. Just because that's in the Bible, and God even sanctioned it in this case, you're not going to suggest that this is a viable "social institution" worth propping up for society, are you?

Did he [Martin Luther] not see devils?

(And this offends your modern sensibilities? Oh. We see)

Did he not lead a revolt against the one true Church and the followers of St. Peter, upon who Christ built his Church?

And were not some of the Popes' actions in medievel and later times' worth revolting against? (Or are you willing to go on record defending all of those things done in the name of the church???)

Oh, and btw, "the church" has ALWAYS been flesh and blood, not brick and mortar; an organism, not an "organization" or institution. The very Greek word for "church" -- ecclesia -- means "called-out ones." Ones = certain PEOPLE -- who are the God-built temple of the Holy Spirit.

[Colofornian]

“...Romney is an outlier....” - only if you choose to warp the meaning.

No...it's historically factual that (R) POTUS candidates have been quite numerically distant from (D) POTUS candidates in given states.

Secondly, poll-wise, that historically factual data has been reinforced as not changing in this 2012 race.

So you're now claiming that Romney isn't numerically distant in all/most/many of these states? Really? And even if we can't agree upon which states are in that category, you've already conceded OR & CA to Obama.

That concession can only be done with an obvious realization that Romney has far too much ground to make up in those states. Hence, Romney is numerically distant -- and has ZERO chance of winning those states.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

Wow. Best response I’ve ever seen from a Goode supporter. Very well thought out, coherent, and reasonable. Great post.

[GilesB]

“The irony we see on these threads from the self-appointed “Bigot patrol” (a loose-knit term I’ve applied to other posters) is that they tend to show themselves when they are rather offended — intolerant if you will — about certain religious comments.

“Does that apply to you?

“Are you intolerant of certain religious comments made within this thread?

“If so, how is your intolerance to be differentiated from what you deem as religious “bigotry?””

Williams - you see how the question mark works? Is there any doubt that you and I are being accused of bigotry by innuendo?

I find the leading sentence, “The irony we see on these threads from the self-appointed...” to be EXTREMELY ironic and informative.

Colofornian - in the world I come from, the clealy displayed hatred of Mormon”ISM” (quaint, that affectation) is openly, plainly and honestly called “bigotry”, and where I come from, honest men are not afraid of honest words.

I am not a Hindu, nor Muslim, nor Morman, nor Catholic - BUT I can spot anti-any-of-those bigotry a mile away.

[Colofornian]

Colofornian - in the world I come from, the clealy displayed hatred of Mormon”ISM” (quaint, that affectation) is openly, plainly and honestly called “bigotry”, and where I come from, honest men are not afraid of honest words.

IOW, you concede that you are "bigoted" intolerant of my religious views vs. cults.

Well, fine. Be intolerant vs. my views; I will continue to object to certain worldviews.

Lest you think I am suddenly making up my convictions-on-the-fly to address personally you and/or Williams, allow me to quote from a post from Nov. 1, 2011...excerpt below the **********:

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

All "bigoted" means = intolerant

All "cannot stand" = intolerant

So you are intolerant of Mitt Romney based upon his stances

Now here's the interesting part. Mormons are my relatives. Highly valuable people. Worth the love.

Yet, for a reason, you have "personalized" what you can not stand -- personalized it in a person (Mitt Romney).

Me? I get along with the Mormons in my life. They are worth the love exchanged. I make a distinction 'tween the "ISM" and the person, much the same way many will treat the homosexual well and yet vehemently oppose the homosexual agenda.

You've bought into the liberal, homosexual activist worldview that if you oppose the agenda, you oppose the person, and are therefore guilty of bigotry. (You can thank the MSM and your liberal campus educators for such a perspective gleaned from them)

According to your perspective -- if you were to embrace any modicum of consistency, that is, the Christian and conservative elements in society should shut down any and all opposition to homosexual activist demands because that, too, is deemed as "bigotry."

Here's the fact: Everybody is tolerant and everybody is intolerant of something. Everybody draws the line somewhere on what they won't oppose. But opposition in and of itself does not = "hate" (I get the feeling some people grew up in homes of conflict and project any disagreement as hate-filled)

Yet you are bigoted toward religious views (like mine) because you draw the line at some point. It shows you are intolerant of some things. I say, "Well, good for you. Everybody's intolerant of some things. And some people are tolerant of false teachers, deception, and counterfeiters." (That's just the way things run)

But bottom line, "tolerance" is not touted as any great virtue in the Bible. Why? Because it's so dependent upon what is being discussed! It actually falls more into the licentious camp.

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

Upon posting the above, poster Eternal Vigilance posted:

"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." -- G.K. Chesterton

[Colofornian]

Colofornian - in the world I come from, the clealy displayed hatred of Mormon”ISM” (quaint, that affectation) is openly, plainly and honestly called “bigotry”, and where I come from, honest men are not afraid of honest words.

Also, back in May 2010 a FR poster wrote, "I now understand that Colofornian is an anti-Mormon bigot."

Osage Orange responded: "Oh...well that's original. So does that make you an anti-anti-mormon bigot? I guess it does, eh?"

So...Giles...are you an anti-anti-MormonISM bigot?

In that same thread, I responded to the original poster the excerpt below:

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

In light of the origin of the word "bigot" I find all this a bit ironic. Originally, the word “bigot” was developed in a Catholic context & wasn't originally aimed at anyone outside of a historic Christian (Catholic) context.

"Bigot" is etymologically tied to "Beguines." It was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood, with the meaning of attaching "excessive devotion" to this sisterhood...(yeah, the devoted do get slapped around a bit).

So, you’re right...in one way in that “bigot” in its original usage was tied to perceived intolerance. (I don’t know if the Beguines were actually intolerant or not). The Beguines were probably at least perceived as practicing "spiritual one-upsmanship"--and others didn't like it--they felt looked down upon. Perhaps they felt scorned because such sisterhoods tended to isolate themselves more and because of that, the Beguines perhaps were perceived as being spiritually snooty ("we don't like how excessively devoted they are").

But to wind this back to what I said. "Bigot" is originally tied to "excessive devotion." I suppose it's possible that the Beguines were indeed "excessively devoted." (It's also just as possible that the other Catholics' perception was largely wrong...but once a reputation develops...). But let's just say they were excessively devoted. If that's the name-slinging you wish to engage in...I'll just claim a historical context.

But if you want to insist on a contemporary usage of that term -- that "bigot" means "intolerant" -- then you need to answer Osage Orange's Q. Because aren't you showing religious intolerance toward us? On what grounds is your "intolerance" so "allowable" and therefore elitist, whereas anyone else's perceived "intolerance" is called into question?

[GilesB]

STOP with insisting that I havee “conceded OR & CA” in order to make a further point. You can repeat that rubbish as long as you like, and it doesn’t make it true. The first time I said there wss a sliver of a chance in OR - you rushed to call that a concession. I then very clearly inforrmed you that I don’t concede OR, that I consider it less likely than WA, and you persist in YOUR characterization of what I meant (something against the RF club rules, I thought). Make your arguments honestly.

Outlier - A value far from most others in a set of data.

California 2008 election results:
1) 61.0% - Obama
2) 37.0% - McCain
3) 2.0% - everybody else

Any statistician or mathematician will easily identify #3 as the outliers (that’s where Goode will be in 2012) To call 37% an outlier is warping the meaning. HISTORY has nothing to do with outliers. The same data point can be in the same position over centuries, but simply because it “never has a chance” of exceeding the higher data point does not make it an outlier. No statistician will ignore a result of 37%. Quick clue - when “everybody else” is either lumped together in a 2% slice or not mentioned - BINGO! They are statistical outliers!

This is now so far off topic it is mere silliness.

[GilesB]

Recognizing a bigoted statement, action or opinion does not make one a bigot, and it is absurd to claim that it does.

The repeated actions on this board of posting an anti-ISM screed, waiting for folks to respond, then pouncing 2, 3, 4 at a time - sometimes calling in others to witness the feeding frenzy - for something as benign as commenting in a way that does not loudly declare that one is ANTI_ISM!!! - that practice on this forum has lead many “visitors” to quickly discern a bigotry (btw - much that is true is not original, so the “that’s original, are you an anti-anti...” response is a complete non sequitur.

I am not the lone observer of this practice. The interesting irony is that you have created an insular orthodoxy around hating a specific insular orthodoxy - and woe betide the unwitting “wanderer” who dares ventures here without promptly displaying their hatred for the ISM. Similar to news items about folks wandering into the “wrong” neighborhood. Just wondering - would the person who commenting on the bigotry of those who killed the carload of folks “not from around here” be rightly considered a bigot himself?

[Colofornian]

Outlier - A value far from most others in a set of data. California 2008 election results: 1) 61.0% - Obama 2) 37.0% - McCain 3) 2.0% - everybody else

#1...McCAIN NEVER had a chance in CA...

#2...If a football team knows they never have a chance vs. another team -- and winds up losing 61-37...there's no consolation in that just because they can point to another team that lost to them 61-2.

Runner-up roles count only in horse-racing.

[Colofornian]

Recognizing a bigoted statement, action or opinion does not make one a bigot, and it is absurd to claim that it does.

Sure it does. It says a LOT about you and your willingness to "tolerate" falsehoods...counterfeits...and cults.

And when this is integrated politically, it tells us that people who tend to hold these convictions also think it would be "bigoted" to consider the jihadist worldviews of a Muslim candidate...

Or it would be "bigoted" to consider the other-worldly worldviews of a Scientologist candidate...[Where this weighs in is a "character" issue -- a candidate's gullibility to deception...which applies not only to the religious realm but also foreign policy, etc...Discernment of a candidate is a character issue oft' forgotten in people who think of formal "job descriptions"...Yet you want to reduce this all to mere "bigotry" -- as if ONLY the worldview of the evaluative voter matters and ne'er the worldview of the candidate under consideration...how ludicrous]

I can just see the day...the year is 2024...a Satanist candidate runs for POTUS...and you rush in to threads to lecture and scold posters for highlighting the Satanic beliefs of that candidate...I suppose you would be consistent in calling them "bigots," too, eh?

Or why even bother with hypotheticals? There's been COUNTLESS threads on FR highlighting both the supposed closet Muslim views of Obama...along with his ties to Jeremiah Wright.

I supposed you've displayed your convictions in those threads, too, eh? Have you gone in there and accused others of being "bigots" vs. Islam? No? Why how convenient?

And if not, then how religiously dual-faced and hypocritical.

If you're speaking out of religious conviction here in your ongoing tirade vs. perceived "bigotry," then you've got a LOT of work to do on other threads...Better get your lecture tour in order.

Otherwise, I openly challenge and question you on your lack of consistency...which has already been well-displayed by your open resistance to applying your Virgil Goode win (say the state of CA) vs. the same Q as applied to Mitt Romney (can he win the state of CA?).

[Colofornian]

Williams - you see how the question mark works?

(Yes...we noted your 7 Q marks in post #204 alone...you jumped right out of the starting block on this thread w/em...)

[Elsie]

Second - you make a valid point, albeit a bit aggressively - unnecessarily so in my opinion.

I thought you wuzn't gonna whine?

---

You can make a valid point without making erroneous assumptions about people, or being needlessly abrasive.

Next thing ya know; we'll be getting a lecture on posting without lecturing...

[Elsie]

I want him to FAIL!!

What's so dang hard to understand??

[Elsie]

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.

All non-FIs are allowed to whine as long as they pose their whines as a lecture.

Willy and you can ALSO denegrate if you wish; just follow the RULES.

Even though they ARE pesky and limit our sometimes peppery vocabulary.

[Elsie]

1/3

[Colofornian]

The repeated actions on this board of posting an anti-ISM screed, waiting for folks to respond, then pouncing 2, 3, 4 at a time - sometimes calling in others to witness the feeding frenzy - for something as benign as commenting in a way that does not loudly declare that one is ANTI_ISM!!!

Actually, part of what's being addressed here is your own religious worldviews 100% apart from whatever you believe or don't believe about Mormonism.

For example, your very Qs in post #204 imply -- and perhaps you could clarify them -- but they imply that you "compartmentalize" "religion" from "politics."

I don't embrace that silliness. People integrate their other-worldly worldviews into all areas of life.

What Qs in post #204 am I referencing?

These: ...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? ... 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??

***********

...woe betide the unwitting “wanderer” who dares ventures here without promptly displaying their hatred for the ISM

Well, first of all, since I believe you have some Biblical moorings in your life, please show us from the Bible where we as Christians are ever called to be "neutral" toward falsehoods?

2 Cor. 10:3-5 and Jude 3 and Titus 1:9 are enough verses for me where Paul, etc. said there is a "battleground" mentality Christians are to have vs. all that elevates itself "against the knowledge of God": 5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. (2 Cor. 10:5)

You seemed to have a rather feeble approach to approaching falsehoods...as evidenced by what you said in post #204: ...this is a discussion of ISM - I got that. I don’t believe in it, don’t defend it, never have

Don't overwhelm us if you ever applied this same lack of passion to...say, Obama, Dems, liberals, or pro-aborts!

[Elsie]

“Are you intolerant of certain religious comments made within this thread?

Well; I sure am!!

And most of them are statements that have been made by MORMONs that I have posted!

[GilesB]

Wow - your leaps in logic are astounding, I am surprised they are not crippling.

I’ll just leave it at this - you infer and assume things about me that are wholly without foundation or merit - regardless of whatever rationalization you may offer henceforth.