Lapsed Mormon Unloads On Mitt Romney

There's a saying in the Mormon church that largely holds true. It certainly does with this weird Michael Moody. "People can leave the (LDS) Church, but they can't leave it alone."

Anyone can make anyone's beliefs look funny or even evil. Michael Moody just sounds "moody"!

There are many misunderstandings about the Mormon faith, Mr. Moody has highlighted a few of the anti-Mormon favorites. This article is hardly enlightening, instead of giving good solid facts it only serves to perpetuate inaccuracies. Great timing, I am a Ron Paul fan and know the media is against him, but surely Mitt Romney is #2 on their list.

I totally agree with diligentdave. Moody is obsessed. I can make even more destructive assinuations against Huckabee and the Southern Baptists. Their religion can be made to look just as conspiring and their members made to look even more naive and deceived than the Mormons. Huckabee's propensity to use the "brothers and sisters" of his faith to sway election results was clearly demonstrated in the organized way in which they mobilized their churches in Iowa. The tax status of those churches should be brought down due to the repeated instances of using churches and church vehicles to campaign. If a faith will keep their church out of the fray, as the Mormons seem to be doing, why don't we leave this stuff alone?

If you want to write about the Mormons, get your info from a Mormon! And... BTW what's so wierd about Mormons? Not any wierder than the Baptists teaching for the cradle (they have all kinds of materials that they use) and they teach ANTI Jehovah Witness, Christian Science, LDS, Catholic -- you name it they are the Anti-Anti's.

Religious bigotry is live and well! Give me a break! This Moody sounds like an excommunicated mormon. His word has no credibility. This is like an ex-employee telling how bad the company was before he got fired.

If you want to find out what the mormons actually believe go to www.lds.org

Emmaline:
"anti-anti's" LOL!!! I'll have to remember that, especially since I've lived with some of these types of Baptists. It's a shame, the bigots make the other normal Baptists look bad.

For what its worth, Mr. Moody has it backwards regarding "convert" vs "cultural" believers of a religion. Converts do not have an excuse - they study the religion and join with "open-eyes",(Mr. Reid), whereas cultural believers(Mr. Romney) adopt their parents religion. Although a cultural believer could become like a convert, (othodox in their beliefs), I have not seen evidence in Mr. Romney. In fact, the opposite, i.e, Romney was previously pro-abortion, a capitalist (mormons teach a communist-socialism theoacracy, i.e, Mr. Reid), and works on Sunday. Ok, there are other things that could point the other way. The point is, your own fears will grow horns on any human being, i.e., black-slavery, muslims, scientology, christians-roman era, witchcraft-dark ages, believing the world is round prior to its discovery, should I go on? Someone needs to pull people like Mr. Moody outside-in or is it inside-out. You got it, your perceptions become you.

For what its worth, Mr. Moody has it backwards regarding "convert" vs "cultural" believers of a religion. Converts do not have an excuse - they study the religion and join with "open-eyes",(Mr. Reid), whereas cultural believers(Mr. Romney) adopt their parents religion. Although a cultural believer could become like a convert, (othodox in their beliefs), I have not seen evidence in Mr. Romney. In fact, the opposite, i.e, Romney was previously pro-abortion, a capitalist (mormons teach a communist-socialism theoacracy, i.e, Mr. Reid), and works on Sunday. Ok, there are other things that could point the other way. The point is, your own fears will grow horns on any human being, i.e., black-slavery, muslims, scientology, christians-roman era, witchcraft-dark ages, believing the world is round prior to its discovery, should I go on? Someone needs to pull people like Mr. Moody outside-in or is it inside-out. You got it, your perceptions become you.

The shamefulness about this article starts with the media. It's as if they are searching for controversy not fact. Why else would you interview one that is obviously a "lapsed Mormon"? Controversy. Stirring the pot. Why can't we just ignore people that have no agenda other then drawing attention on themselves?

Emmaline:

"If you want to write about the Mormons, get your info from a Mormon!"

Exactamundo!

And if you want to learn about Communism, go to the writings of Joseph Stalin - no point in wasting your time with ex-Communists & non-Communists. They will only confuse the issue ...

Clearly Mormons do not believe the traditional Christian dogma established by Jesus and his disciples and the Catholic and Protestant (as well as Orthodox) Churches. Americans tend to want a President that is Christan because after all this is a Christian country right? God Bless the USA!

There are many things the Mormons will not tell you, because they take strict secrecy oaths to protect what goes on in the temple. I found out the hard way when my daughter converted. Her own parents were not allowed to attend the wedding, because we are not Mormon. She was not allowed to know beforehand what the ritual would be like or to ever talk about it afterward.

To really know about the Mormons, go to ex Mormon websites such as Recovery from Mormonism and ask people who have been there and will talk about it.

There is a certain saying the in Scientology Church; "People can leave Scientology but they can't leave it alone."

jmr862003,

Christianity as taught by Jesus and His disciples and the Catholics and the Protestants. . . and the Orthodox Churces? LOL. That's funny. You don't get the joke but I'm sure others will.

I left the mormon church and they sure can't seem to leave me alone.

Missionaries, home teachers, visiting teachers for my wife, bishop and his counselors come a calling. Thats not to mention my family that just cannot accept that somebody could leave their religion.

Yes, if only they could leave us alone...

To clarify a point. The question about Jesus and Satan being brothers has never been answered directly. From Mormon magazines and teaching manuals, including a manual to teach the youngest children:

(ElRay L. Christiansen, "Q&A: Questions and Answers," New Era, July 1975, 48-50)
"Can Satan or his hosts read our thoughts, and do they still have a knowledge of our pre-earth life, which would and could aid them in tempting us?"

Answer
The account of Satan, or Lucifer as he came to be known, is a frightening example of rebellion against God and apostasy from that which is right and good.

All of us, including Lucifer, are sons and daughters of God. Before we were born into mortality, we lived in the premortal state as spirit children of our heavenly parents. We were taught there the plan of salvation.

(I Am a Child of God By Elder Robert D. Hales of the First Quorum of the Seventy (Liahona 1978 November) (Friend March 1978))
Lucifer was one of Heavenly Father's most brilliant spirit sons.

(Presidents of the Church Teachers manuel Lesson 1)
When Heavenly Father presented the plan of salvation, he said, "Whom shall I send?" Jesus said, "Here am I, send me" (Abraham 3:27). But another of Heavenly Father's spirit children, named Lucifer, said, "Here am I, send me" (Abraham 3:27).

(Lesson 4: I Chose to Follow Jesus Christ," Primary 2: Choose the Right A, 16)
Point out that another spirit son whose name was Lucifer also wanted to be sent to earth to help us. He told Heavenly Father that he would come to earth and force all of us to do what is right. He wouldn't let us choose for ourselves. Lucifer wanted Heavenly Father to give him all the honor and glory.

You want accurate info on mormons? www.mormon.org.

Mr Moody is a sad puppy! If'n he's an excommunicated Mormon, then he likely has a beef with his Bishop and any Bishop (such as Romney) who likely had a hand in his excommunication. Sad......

Re Baptist Bashing: "they have all kinds of materials that they use." Yeah, that whole Bible thing. Wow. You got us. Huckabee-too liberal for the Republican elite and too conservative for any Democrat. Let's ban religion. It's not good for the bottom line and status quo. That whole Jesus thing just freaks me out. You know. Peace. Love.

When Romney went through the secret LDS temple endowment ceremony he would have taken the oath to observe the Law of Obedience and promised before God, angels and witnesses to "accept the Law of Consecration as contained in the Book of 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." If Romney should be elected, would he view the US Presidency as something the Lord has blessed him with? Would he keep his sworn oath to consecrate that blessing to the LDS Church?

Mormons claim that theirs is the "one true church". Missionaries spend two years repeating Joseph Smith's claim that God himself had declared all other churches to be false, all an "abomination" before God and those who professed those creeds are "corrupt". Mormons perform proxy baptisms for the dead (usually without the permission or knowledge of the person's living relatives) To make the posthumous Mormons. Mormons do not permit non-Mormon parents to be present at temple wedding ceremony of their own child; forcing couples into making the people who love them to wait outside with broken hearts. Prior to 1990, the temple ceremony included a portrayal of a Protestant minister as a servant of Satan. Mormon doctrine still teaches that black skin & features are a punishment from God - the Curse of Cain.

Mormons whine about prejudice when their doctrines and practices are scrutinized and yet are unwilling to examine how they discriminate against others.

It is telling that the most animosty toward the Mormon church is from former members and non-members who live the the theocracy that is Utah.

Who said he was excommunicated?

Many people quit the Mormon church when they find out they have been lied to their whole lives about it's real history.

The church practices a particularly vicious form of shunning and spreads nasty rumors about anyone who dares to leave it.

A great website for some Mormon beliefs and Temple ritual can be found at: http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/resurrectwife.htm

Mr. Moody may have seemed bitter but only those who leave the Mormon church know what the experience is like. Mormons in general, are very self-righteous and are quick to defend their faith, all the while claiming to be Christians who "don't judge" others. Unfortunately, they judge heavily and make it a point to criticize anyone who has a complaint with Mormonism, even when those complaints are legitimate.

satan isn't somebody that has so much power that he just flared himself into being. Of course he was "created" or he'd be more powerful then Heavenly Father. Heavenly Father is in control, even of what satan's limited power can do to us. If that makes one think that Jesus and satan are brothers, so be it.

It's nice to see that some 'good Christians' are intent on judging who is 'Christian enough' or who belongs to a 'cult'. (www.mormoncult.org has some answers on the cult aspect)

I think that the more interesting point is not the LDS church's influence over Romney, which I think is negligible, but rather that Romney was a representative of this organization when it practiced racial discrimination with the justifications that Blacks were cursed collectively as descendants of Cain and Ham and individually for their conduct relative to other races in some premortal existence.

Unless, Akers also believes that opposition to racism is a "dirty trick."

Oh, and someone should Romney about the temple ceremonies that he participated in prior to 1990 in which ministers from other Christian denominations who received pay for their work were portrayed as being in the direct employ of Satan.

I am really tired of the Mormon bashing that has surrounded Mitt Romney's Presidential bid.

Romney has not run his campaign as a Mormon attempting to be our next President.

Unlike Huckabee who has run on the basis of being a Christian Pastor, Romney has run his campaign as a conservative attempting to be our next President who just happens to be a Mormon.

In my view, no one has the right to condemn or persecute anyone else for their faith.

Isn't this America and wasn't our Country was founded upon the premise that all Americans have the God-given right to practice their faith according to the dictates of their own conscience.

Anyone who violates this fundamental right should pack up their bags and leave this Country -- I can recommended several Islamic countries where this level of bigotry is acceptable.

According to my extensive research and by biblical definition (as opposed to nicean definition) Mormons are every bit as Christian if not more so than any other protestant/evangelical religion, including: Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Lutherans, Wesleyans, etc.

Didn't the Savior spend much of his mortal ministry condemning the Pharisees and Hypocrites. Perhaps we should spend some time studying his example and message of inclusionism.

Isn't it far past time for us to put aside our religious bigotry and get on with the process of nominating our next President.

The main problem going to a Mormon source for correct information on Mormonism is that these sites misrepresent, falsify or cover-up unsavory doctrines and embarassing history items. Most Mormons are either unaware of these factors that are negative to their current beliefs, or consider them to be of little consequence and "anti-Mormon". Can the "one and only true church" be true even if just one item which the church promotes as true is known to be false?

God shines his sun and rains his rain on both the good and the evil, and told us to love our enemies, not just our friends.

As a Mormon, I think we should focus on following Christ, in this one thing at least if we can't agree further, and dispense with personal and institutional and petty theological attacks.

Let Jesus decide these details when he comes again. No need to judge for him if he hasn't given you that authority. If you disagree yourself, disagree for yourself, not for me.

This doesn't mean we should spend our lives in ignorance, but the scriptures teach us to ask God if we have a troubling question, not people who point the finger of scorn. He could have said ask your minister, but not all ministers are right, either, let alone do they disagree.

Also as a Mormon, I can tell you I was there as a spirit when the Council of Heaven happened, but I can't remember it, so I have no business FORCING my version of pre-Adam history on anyone or TAKING FLAK from others who also can't remember it. (Two sides of the same coin.)

The basics from a Mormon perspective are that Adam and Eve had to fall from the presence of God to become wise, but that a way back had to be prepared for them, and that was Jesus Christ, but the way back had to be voluntary or it would not mean anything. Jesus was chosen from the beginning, probably before the council ever happened. Nevertheless, the Father asked who he should send and two choices came up, one that would respect the freedom to of moral agency and one that would force us to go through life spotless, perhaps without even falling or maybe Lucifer imagined infinite abortions--who knows. But he would get all the glory whereas Jesus said he would give the glory to the Father. A war ensued, in which a third of the host of heaven followed Lucifer and were cast out of Heaven by the power of God, never to receive bodies. They had rejected their first estate and would not be given the opportunity to receive another. Lucifer became the fallen angel Satan, empowered to tempt man for the period of this life, if man would let him, but subject to the ultimate power of God.

You can present this story in its full glory, which undoubtedly reflects a great loss of detail, or you can present it in a mocking way, as some do. To me it glorifies God and helps complete my understanding of the meaning of life. If we "keep our second estate" by doing our part here, we can inherit "all that the Father has" as a joint heir with Christ. We will have done our part, and Jesus will have done the rest, opening the pathway back to the Father, bridging both sin and death as some put it, through his suffering and the power of the resurrection, by which we are brought back into the presence of God to be judged.

What people like Moody are really doing is questioning the authority of those who received or continue to teach these revelations, with insufficient evidence to prove one way or the other. If God doesn't confirm it to you, you have insufficient evidence to make an honest stand one way or the other.

Jesus said blessed are the peacemakers, not blessed are the troublemakers. I kind of wish he had said blessed are those that listen to the peacemakers, but that should be implicit. Jesus of course, was the Great Peacemaker.

I am waiting for the first example of how Mitt Romney's interpretation of his obligations as a Mormon entered into his governance of Massachusetts and/or his business leadership career.

Anyone???????

Why is this news?

Perhaps they should ask this question: If Jesus was not part of a great, preordained plan, why was he prophesied of and looked forward to hundreds, even thousands of years before his coming? From a Mormon perspective, on two continents?

Ok, so now should we dispute and tear apart all of the other bloggers religions?

Should we start with the Baptists,
or the Jehovah Witnesses,
or the Pentacostals?

Where should we start?

Isn't this the way that Christ would handle things?

Didn't he try to find ways to hate? Try to divide?

If you are a Christian, isn't this what you are supposed to be doing?

So, which religion should we attack next?

All religions have issues, let's dissect, trash, and abuse the doctrine and the people --- for Jesus.

When we are done, let's remember that we are just acting like Christians. I mean, isn't that really why we do the things we do?

I have some comments to this Mormon's spiel:

Isn't this America and wasn't our Country was founded upon the premise that all Americans have the God-given right to practice their faith according to the dictates of their own conscience.

>No one has said that Mormons can't practice their religion. At least not since Joe Smith was booted out of Illinois, back in the 1800s. He and his followers were booted out because the men practiced polygamy (and pedophilia with some of the underage brides).

Anyone who violates this fundamental right should pack up their bags and leave this Country -- I can recommended several Islamic countries where this level of bigotry is acceptable.

>Its not 'bigotry' for a religion to define itself. Its telling the truth. Mormonism is counter to many important, basic, biblical doctrines. Mormonism is hinged on this: Was Joe Smith a prophet under inspiration or not? Was all of the church doctrine, from the carefully studied and parsed New Testament, wrong for 1700 years?
Were all who did not accept polygamy damned eternally? Last but most important, were Jesus Christ and the rest of the apostles lying when proclaiming His deity?

According to my extensive research and by biblical definition (as opposed to nicean definition)

> Ah, here is the caveat', the Nicean Creed (and every other creed from the early church!)

Mormons are every bit as Christian if not more so than any other protestant/evangelical religion, including: Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Lutherans, Wesleyans, etc.

>Uh, no. Mormons are Mormons. They use alternative scriptures, they use Christian words and alter their meanings, they teach polytheism, they have also repudiated the very foundation (polygamy) that old Joe Smith and Brigham Young said was essential for salvation, not to mention for populating your new planet in the universe!

Mr Mormon: is your church eternally damned for repudiating the prophet's teachings or was your prophet wrong (or a liar)? In Israel they stoned false prophets for one wrong prophecy!
Shysters like Smith and Charles Taze Russell founded churches with doctrines that were totally unique and opposed to Christianity...by its very definition!

I am a Mormon and a believer in Jesus Christ. I try to live the 10 commandments and the Beatitudes. I love my wife Pam of 25 years and my two sons very much. I also love my country with all my heart. I have been to Omaha Beach and have seen the tears in my young sons eyes when he realized the cost of freedom in our land. Mr. Moody is flat out WRONG.
1.Our Temples are not secret, they are sacred to us. Prior to their dedecation thousand and thousands of people from all religious backgrounds are invited to visit during the open houses. In Sacramento prior to the dedication of the Temple there some 175,000 people visited and tour the inside of the Temple.
2.Our 12th Article of Faith says "we believe in beign subjectt to our political leaders and in honoring and sustaining the law".
3 The Mormon Church is offically neutral on all political matters. The President of the Church never tells a member what to do politically. Look at the difference between Harry Reid and Mitt Romney, can you imagine two more politically differing opinions? Obviously these men are not are not getting marching orders from the same source because they totally oppose each other.
4. I go to the temple with my wife almost monhly. We worship God there and renew our marraige vows. There is no Blood Covenant.
5. Look at the Mormons you know. In general,are they not some of the best people you know? They love their families and they are Patriots for this Great Country.
6. First and formost Mormons believe in Freedom of choice or Agency. We believe that all men are endowed with this right from the creator. If God gave it to us in the begining, why would he ever take it away. Christian theology teaches about the struggle between God and Satan for the Agency of man. God want all men to have liberty or freedom while Satan wants to force and control all mankind. It is unconsciencable that such a lie could be told about my faith.

Jesus said "By their fruit ye shall know them".

Think of Mitt Romney, he has been faithful to his wife and his family. He love his country. He is a great Patriot who represented the country with honor during the Olympics.

Come on America lets unite on our common Christian faith not be full of venom and hatred for Mormons, Catholics, Baptists, and Protestants of all denominations. Lets focus on what unites us and remember that many have fought and died for this great land and its liberty including many of ALL of the religious of those churches I just mentioned. Please, I love this land I love and honor Jesus Christ, the true author to our liberty.

Tim Russert's interview with Mitt Romney reminded us that Romney has changed positions on major issues including abortion, same sex marriage and gun control when he found it expedient to his presidential bid, causing many of us to question the use of his statement, "Americans do not respect believers of convenience". The loyalty he expresses to the faith of his fathers seems appropriate in that this deity has also flip flopped on major issues. In 1890, the LDS god forbade the practice of plural marriage after decades of telling followers that the only way to celestial exaltation was via the doctrine of polygamy. He apparently changed his mind again in 1978 when he revealed to his prophet that Blacks would now be eligible to hold the priesthood. This revelation came after more than a century of doctrine that taught Negroes were cursed with a black skin because of their iniquities in the pre-existence, and could never hold the LDS priesthood.

Some voters may overlook a few of Mitt's foibles but with increasing disclosures about the LDS faith, it's easy to understand why, in recent polls, most of the nation would not vote for a Mormon president. Had his church opted to explain doctrinal flip flops as simply the correcting of human errors in church doctrine, then one might understand, but to claim divine revelation for these changes suggests that this Mormon god, like Romney, is terribly undecided and subject to philosophical change with every shift in the political winds.

Romney claims that he will be independent of his church's leadership.

He keeps telling us that the LDS leadership (including his now deceased cousin Marion Romney) respect the separation of Church and State and encourage independent thought on all matters spiritual and civil.

But there's a problem.

The LDS prophets have always taught that there is no separation between the 'spiritual' (i.e. religion) and the 'temporal' (everything else).

Ezra Taft Benson ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Taft_Benson ) the leader of the Mormon church from 1985 to 1994 repeated these teaching in absolute clarity.

"FOURTEEN FUNDAMENTALS IN FOLLOWING THE PROPHET
BY
ELDER Ezra Taft Benson
February 26, 1980

...

Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter--temporal or spiritual.

Said Brigham Young:

Some of the leading men in Kirtland were much opposed to Joseph the Prophet, meddling with temporal affairs... .

In a public meeting of the Saints, I said, "Ye Elders of Israel.... will some of you draw the line of demarcation, between the spiritual and temporal in the Kingdom of God, so that I may understand it?" Not one of them could do it....

I defy any man on earth to point out the path a Prophet of God should walk in, or point out his duty, and just how far he must go, in dictating temporal or spiritual things. Temporal and spiritual things are inseparably connected, and ever will be. [Journal of Discourses, 10:363-364]

Tenth: The prophet may be involved in civic matters.

When a people are righteous they want the best to lead them in government. Alma was the head of the Church and of the government in the Book of Mormon,
Joseph Smith was mayor of Nauvoo, and Brigham Young was governor of Utah. Isaiah was deeply involved in giving counsel on political matters and of his words the Lord Himself said, "Great are the words of Isaiah" (3 Nephi 23:1). Those who would remove prophets from politics would take God out of government."

Benson goes on to say:

"Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency--the living prophet and the First Presidency--follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer."

As for the idea that Mormons are free to follow their own best reasoning in 'spiritual' matters, Benson quotes a previous LDS President, Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, N. Eldon Tanner,

"The Prophet spoke out clearly on Friday moming, telling us what our responsibilities are... .

A man said to me after that, "You know, there are people in our state who believe in following the Prophet in everything they think is right, but when it is something they think isn't right, and it doesn't appeal to them, then that's different." He said, "Then they become their own prophet. They decide what the Lord wants and what the Lord doesn't want."

I thought how true, and how serious when we begin to choose which of the covenants, which of the commandments we will keep and follow. When we decide that there are some of them that we will not keep or follow, we are taking the law of the Lord into our own hands and become our own prophets, and believe me, we will be led astray, because we are false prophets to ourselves when we do not to follow the Prophet of God. No, we should never discriminate between these commandments, as to those we should and should not keep. [In Conference Report, October 1966, p. 98]"

Full text of the speech is reproduced here -> http://www.lds-mormon.com/fourteen.shtml

In response to Ron Barker -

I'm quite sure that there will be members of the Mormon Church who will hear the Savior say depart from me I never knew you. I'm equally certain that there will be members of the Mormon Church who will hear their Savior plead their case unto the Father.

I'm quite sure that this will prove equally true for members of virtually all evangelical Churches. Some will be told to depart from the Savior's presence. Others will kneel at the feet of the Savior and will have the privilege of hearing him plead their case unto the Father.

I truly believe that one of the key differentiators will be the extent to which we pattern our lives after the teachings and examples of Christ.

Part of his example was one of inclusion. Inclusion for the jews and gentiles alike.

Didn't the Pharisees also believe that they were the only ones whose beliefs and traditions were correct. The Savior offered stern warnings unto the "Scribes and Pharisees" calling them hypocrites. Perhaps a careful, prayerful study of Matthew 23 would be appropriate.

Flipper:
Are you a Mormon? I am. We separate politics from forced religion (unlike some other running candidate(s).

We do not encourage a candidate to preach from the pulpit, and we honor the taxfree laws. Mitt Romney told the world how he would conduct himself and serve America, and that is just what he will do. You don't know what you are talking about, and you put comments on blogs that are out of context.

Being an American President requires that you represent all faiths, and that is what Romney said he would do, and that is what my church encourages. Romney is running for the office of President, not as your Preacher -- look to Mike Huckabee for that.

AND, you should be concerned about Huckabee for he continues to muddy the water between his candidacy and his religion. Have you seen Romney touring Mormon churches and telling the crowds that they are God's army and that they need to do this for God? No. And before you make a snide comment that we don't follow God (NOT!, we do: www.mormon.org) you need to remember that this is not the forum for running for President.

We need someone who represents more than our values (which are important), we need someone who can lead, accomplish what they say, grow our economy, correct health care and education, tackle illegal immigration, etc.

There are too many faiths in America to be exclusive to one, and that is basically how Mormons feel a Mormon President should act. Reread Mitt's address on Faith in America.

What a sorry piece of journalism coming from one of the nation's great newspapers.

Note: This comment comes from a 60 year male member of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" living in Salt Lake City.

This is from Rush Limbaugh:

Iowa is a caucus; it's a weird setup. New Hampshire allows independents to vote in the Republican primary, which is why McCain is doing as well as he is doing, and it's why the media want this to be a bellwether against Romney. I mean, Pat Buchanan came in second. He came in a very strong second in New Hampshire in 1992. Now, I'm not saying that these contests are not to be taken seriously here, and that they're not to be fought and to be won, but we don't want to get ahead of ourselves. New Hampshire is no longer the conservative barometer it used to be. The state has changed, it is now quite liberal. A lot of people who used to live in Massachusetts have moved into New Hampshire to escape New Hampshire's high taxation and other problems. New England generally the northern states, states like Iowa, is not where the conservative base resides in large numbers. The Drive-By Media would love to destroy the conservative coalition. They would love to destroy the conservative base to the Republican Party. That's why they are promoting Huckabee; it is why they are promoting McCain.

160,000 hits a day on a site that illustrates for all the prevarications that are Mitt's life blood:

www.exmormon.org

I was there and it seems the reporter or her editor heard every other word. So much for accuracy in the media! For the real story, visit www.therevelationpress.com

I'm not interested in attacking anyone, but if you want to know what it is really like to grow up in the Mormon church, check out my blog: http://www.clintrogersonline.com/blog/?p=75

In my opinion, the faith and covenants of Mitt Romney is exactly a reason the American people should vote for him. Everyone seems to worry that Mitt Romney would take orders from the President of the church when in fact, it is the other way around. Joseph Smith himself wrote:

"We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.
We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men show respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker." Doctrine and Covenants 134: 5-6

President Hinckley and all of the members of the leadership of the LDS church made covenants to obey the commandments and uphold the law. If Mitt Romney is elected President of the United States, then these leaders would be responsible for upholding the law, under which President Romney would have leadership. President Romney would then be accountable to God for his actions and his alone.

President Hinckley and the church leadership have responsibility for the spiritual affairs of the church, not the running of any government, especially this one.

How many other candidates have made sacred covenants to uphold the law, to have honor and integrity, to be faithful to ones wife and family, and to be honest in their dealings with their fellow man? It is exactly those covenants that will ensure that President Romney will lead our country with fairness, honesty and integrity.

In response to Meso. First of all, the mormon religion never taught that those of African descent would never be able to hold the priesthood. In fact the opposite was true. Growing up I was taught that they would be allowed to hold the priesthood someday, and sure enough that happened. The early mormons in Missouri were driven out of the state in part because of their abolitionist views and their call to freed slaves to come and join them in Missouri. Why can't people just agree that they disagree when it comes to religion, why must we personally attack and demean. That's the kind of behavior that gives Christians throughout the country a bad name, and certainly is not representative of the Savior's teachings.

It's sad but many of these anti-Mormon and anti-Mitt comments are all hypocrites. There is too much ignorance here because many of you have your heads stuck where the sun don't shine. Mood should move on with his life and don't look back. Be a 'don't worry be happy guy.' How can you learn the truth by going to an anti-Mormon site? And if you don't trust the Mormon site, go to God and pray until you have an answer. Don't quit even if you continue to pray for 7 days. And if you don't get an answer, then give up all your possessions and live like a monk. The fact is that all relgions have issues in their past. So, instead of attacking another person or another religion, why don't you go and do something positive for others?

I am a lapsed Mormon. I can trace my ancestry back to the pioneers who came to Utah with Brigham Young. I went to college and never went back to the church. I left because the rules of the Church were not my cup of tea. The only affect it had on me is that I did not see my father remarry. I met him outside the temple for pictures. That did not bother me in the least.

This is the first time I have really looked back at it in over 20 years and I am sickened. Not by what the Mormon Church has done, but the attacks on it. I respect the people who are in this church, and find nothing that would make me wary of one of their members being President. After all, it is not Mitt Romney that campaigns from the pulpit of his church, it is Mike Huckabee. He is a member of a church that has published such works as "Mormonism Unmasked" that promised to "lift the veil from one of the greatest deceptions in the history of religion". http://www.slate.com/id/2180391

If these attacks were on Judaism or Catholicism, they would be denounced for being the anti-American bigotry that they are. Freedom of Religion and Assembly are 2 of the hallmarks of this county, if you do not like a religion, do not go, it is what I did.

One last point, I am very much a libertarian. I have voted Republican in every election since 1980. If the Republican Party wants to put up Mike Huckabee as it's standard bearer, I will vote for someone else just as I will vote for someone else when the primary comes to Maryland.

Are we still on the issue of Mitt Romney's Faith? Apparently if the Washington Post will keep fueling the fire by publishing articles about the moromn faith, then people will keep pushing the topic, way to go washington post, join the ranks with Moody in telling his bigoted story!

There probably is alot better coverage of the Presidential elections that can be found Mary Ann, seems to me that the article seems a little desperate just to find dirt on Romney and to keep the anti-mormon sensation running high. Tired of candidate mud-slinging, Akers clean the mud off of your own hands and quit perpetuating the religion issue, we are voting for a President not a pastor or mormon leader!

To find out about a cult, you do not ask current cult members. They are brainwashed. You need to ask an ex-cultist, right?

To find out what Mormons believe, do NOT ask a Mormon. they do not know. Go to exmormon.org. former bishops, stake residents, and others tell what it is really like.

Great idea Bonnie. If you want to know what people are really like, go to their enemies. No doubt you'd recommend that someone doing research on African-Americans go to the KKK for the best insights.

As to Mormons becoming gods--the term for this is "theosis" and it's actually an ancient part of Christianity. The Eastern Orthodox to this day believe it. Check out Wikipedia under "theosis." The article also has a more accurate statement of Mormon belief than anything you're likely to read on a born-again site.

If you read the article on Luther in the footnote, you'll also find that Luther preached Mormon doctrine: "In an early (1515) Christmas sermon, Luther notes:
As the Word became flesh, so it is certainly necessary that the flesh should also become Word. For just for this reason does the Word become flesh, in order that the flesh might become Word. In other
words: God becomes man, in order that man should become God."

Luther, by the way, also tried to introduce polygamy among the Germans, using exactly the same arguments for it that Joseph Smith used. Luther was able to perform one polygamous marriage before popular oposition made him back down.

Since I assume anti-Mormons consider themselves "good Christians," they believe in the "Golden Rule." Therefore, they want Mormons to discredit and ridicule their churches as they do the "Mormons."

Don't Baptists believe Mother Theresa was the spirit brother of Hitler?

Didn't the recent president of the Southern Baptist Convention have to leave his church position for adultery? (About the same time the Mormon president was at the White House receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom Award for years of disaster relief services given to America and the world.)

Don't Evangelicals believe that if a "saved" member murders a Mormon child, the Mormon child will automatically spend eternity in hell while the murderer will go directly to heaven?

Don't evangelicals and other "historical Christians" believe in the Jesus of the Nicene Creed and not the Biblical Jesus and his church: apostles, prophets, one lord one faith one baptism?

Don't evangelicals believe that you can't add to the Bible because it says so at the end of Revelation? Yet, when John's Revelation was written the Bible was not yet compiled for another 200 or so years.

Don't Evangelicals believe that only God should judge people? Apparently not, since they believe all "Mormons" automatically go to hell.

Aren't Evangelicals good Americans who support the Constitutional right to freedom of religion? Apparently not, since they are so quick to trash "Mormons."

Since I assume anti-Mormons consider themselves "good Christians," they believe in the "Golden Rule." Therefore, they want Mormons to discredit and ridicule their churches as they do the "Mormons."

Don't Baptists believe Mother Theresa was the spirit sister of Hitler?

Didn't the recent president of the Southern Baptist Convention have to leave his church position for adultery? (About the same time the Mormon president was at the White House receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom Award for years of disaster relief services given to America and the world.)

Don't Evangelicals believe that if a "saved" member murders a Mormon child, the Mormon child will automatically spend eternity in hell while the murderer will go directly to heaven?

Don't evangelicals and other "historical Christians" believe in the Jesus of the Nicene Creed and not the Biblical Jesus and his church: apostles, prophets, one lord one faith one baptism?

Don't evangelicals believe that you can't add to the Bible because it says so at the end of Revelation? Yet, when John's Revelation was written the Bible was not yet compiled for another 200 or so years.

Don't Evangelicals believe that only God should judge people? Apparently not, since they believe all "Mormons" automatically go to hell.

Aren't Evangelicals good Americans who support the Constitutional right to freedom of religion? Apparently not, since they are so quick to trash "Mormons."

Mitt Romney learned how to flip flop from the Grand Master of all flip-flopiest of flip floppers...the Mormon/LDS church.

Mitt and the church will tell you the church doesn't get involved in politics, however the LDS Church most certainly does get involved in politics (e.g., Prop 22 in California) even though they tell the media otherwise, because they don't want to lose their tax-exempt status.

Many LDS members have a persecution complex and cry how unfair that "intolerant bigots" make Mitt Romney's religion an issue in his candidacy, even though it was Mitt himself who made his religion an issue from the start and with his asinine comments like "Freedom requires religion". It's astounding these LDS people don't see the hypocrisy of their words when then church is intolerant of:
- Gays
- Other religions and churches. The LDS Church claims "We are the ONE TRUE CHURCH on the earth." History well documents the Mormon church claimed the Catholic church as "The wh*re of the Earth".
- Historians have been excommunicated by the church for publishing books based on actual events in Mormon history
- Black males, who the LDS Church has long said (and still says) were "descendents of Cain and less than valiant in the preexistance" as the reason for not getting priesthood until 1978
- Couples in interracial relationships. Current leaders in the LDS hierarchy have spoken out against interracial marriage. Brigham Young even preached such couples should be put to death.
- and on and on

It's ironic how the LDS Church wants others to be tolerant of their intolerant faith, yet they'll turn around and battle if you even question their history, believe in a different God (or no God), or have a different view of civil rights.

I can't believe so many people believe all these fairy stories about adman and eve and lucifer. (And I have to say it worries me that potential Presidents buy in to this. It shows a complete lack of intelligence and understanding about the history and development of humanity)

Mormans, Jews, Fundametalist Christians, Muslims etc who believ in the literal truth of their holy books are naive.
The strories contained in their holy books are the equivalent of a religion designed for kindergarden children.

I can understand uneducated people consuming it word for word but in the 21st Century it is surely time to grow up.

Do you not understand that these sort of stories are prevalent in all religions and cultures and that they are MYTHS not fact.

Myths are very powerful and the stories can help you understand certain universal truths but please try and get your head round the fact that tales of great floods and Noah's Ark etc are just apocryphal tales that are useful learning tools in the road of life.

As I said, grow up and get real.

Bby all means use the stories and parables to help you get closer to the truth of your own soul/spirit and its relationship to whatever God you believe in but please don't vote for people who believe that archetypal myths are actually real events.

It is too scary having the world's most powerful nation controlled by such crass and shallow sheep. You need a leader not a follower of fiction.

Romney bashes "secularism", even though it was secularism that has protected this great nation from becoming a theocratic backwater that stifles economic development, technology, medicine, human progress, and yes, even spirituality.

Anyone who believes Romney's statement of "Freedom requires religion" should ask a refugee from Afghanistan or Iran how they feel about that description?

To find out about something read both sides of the argument. In the case of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints they will not give an honest and open account of their church history, church doctrine or finances. They prefer the old adage: "Milk before meat" for "investigators"- those potential converts into the church. I found in my study of the church that the milk was sour and the meat rancid.

I've found the following sites very useful in gaining a realistic view of the church: http://www.exmormon.org/, http://home.teleport.com/~packham/ and www.i4m.com/think.

"If you want to write about the Mormons, get your info from a Mormon!"

So, if you want to know about Communism in Cuba make sure all your information comes from Fidel Castro?

I don't think so. It's best to get your information from all available sources to know what's really going on.

Underneath it's carefully micro-managed exterior Mormonism has a lot of beliefs that most find strange. Mormon foundational beliefs have huge problems in their historical accuracy. Mormons argue you need the milk before the meat - just another sign of the cult that it is. I understand Moody's frustration, however I don't know if he chose the best means of expressing it.

Here is my favorite Mitt video.It says everything you need to know about Romney.
http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=akyJYeBVbuM&rel=1&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//img.youtube.com/vi/akyJYeBVbuM/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskIIDoATJkAwkFe5JjnEPmYC&

if it is "one of the more questionable" "dirty tricks this season" why would you validate it by reporting on it? the media are shameful

Mr. Moody is an embittered excommunicated apostate of the LDS church. If anyone would like to really learn about what the church believes, please visit lds.org or mormon.org. (By the way, there are no "blood oaths" to the church).

http://nowscape.com/mormon/mormcr1b.htm
The blood oath is a part of the tradition. Here is a good link to the ceremony. Joseph Smiths brother was a mason and the rites were
"borrowed" by the LDS Church.

Bryce writes:
'By the way, there are no "blood oaths" to the church'

Perhaps not now, but Mitt Romney would have performed the appalling temple ritual summarized below:

"Each priesthood has two "tokens, signs and penalties" (only three penalties were actually stated, and in 1990 even those three were eliminated), which the patrons are given in sequence as part of their initiation. Each token also has a name which must be learned.
...
The execution of the Penalty was represented by placing the right thumb under the left ear, the palm of the hand down, and by drawing the thumb quickly across the throat to the right ear, and dropping the hand to the side."

http://home.teleport.com/~packham/temples.htm

Am I correct in assuming that if you're a "no-name," nothing you say has any value and you deserve to be ignored? I don't know who this guy is - neither do you, which I suppose is the point - but please! Are we so celebrity-obsessed that we can't admit that the little people might occasionally have a relevant point to make? And face it, while we're all so busy bending over backward to be culturally competent and religiously tolerant, we can admit that Mormonism has many way-out beliefs and a not-always-squeaky-clean history. Cult? I don't know. But are the Native Americans really the descendants of the evil tribe that made endless war against the righteous tribe, as described in the Book of Mormon? Hmmmm.

Wow! Well, bigotry is as bigotry does and this blog was never intended to educate anyone about Mitt Romney or Mormonism. It was clearly intended to inflame and give voice to religous bigotry and to serve as an appeal to demean a specific candidate - oh, and just coincidently to get the issue back out there just before the New Hampshire primary. The shame here is on the Washington Post and Mary Ann Akers. Had Ms. Akers printed a similar gnome from some idiot about whether a black american could properly serve as president, the Wash. Post would have rightfully and immediatly have taken her blog down - while Ms. Akers profusely apologized to the likes of the Rev. Sharpton. This blog is nothing more than a continuation of that not so innocent appeal to bigotry that began with Mike Huckabee. If that is the leadership you want, vote for Mike. I'm for Rudy -- the non-practicing Catholic.

I find the bitterness of born-agains towards Mormons very strange. It's not the sort of emotion that one would typically consider "Christian." I have talked to a lot of Catholics over the years and find that they don't get nearly as worked up (of the over 700 anti-Mormon groups in the US, only three are run by Catholics, the rest are born-again projects). The born-again eagerness to send 99 percent of humanity to Hell for eternity also strikes me as distinctly un-Christian. Mormons may not believe your religion is true, but we don't believe you'll go to Hell over it.

I also find the paranoia a bit strange. This weird claim that we are hiding something. All the fundamental documents that born-agains use to critisise the Church are freely available at either BYU or Deseret Bookstores.

Do you want a copy of the original text of The Book of Mormon? It's there. In fact, if you want to see every change made to the text since it was a manuscript, BYU even publishes a four-volume edition with all the changes listed in the apparatus. Do you want Juanita Brooks "Mountain Meadow Massacre"? It's there. Faun Brodie's scholarly attack on Joseph Smith ("No Man Knows My History")? It's there. A copy of any of the texts that Joseph Smith supposedly plagerized in writing The Book of Mormon? Check out BYU Bookstore. I was just home on leave from Iraq for a few weeks and stopped by BYU bookstore. They're still selling "Dialogue" and "Sunstone," two journals frequently very critical of the Church.

In other words, if you wanted to write a scholarly critique of the LDS church, you would come to us to get your basic materials. So what, exactly, is being hidden?

Granted, most Mormons know zip about their history or doctrine, but long experience tells me that is equally true of Catholics and Protestants. I've lived in Moslem countries for the last six years and I think I can also fairly say the average Moslem knows little or nothing about his own religion other than the commonplace hand me downs that form the religious background of most religious people.

That said, I have pretty much read most of what has been written on Mormon history and doubt that we have much more to be disturbed about than, say, Protestants or Catholics, whose own histories are not altogether an unmitigated example of Christian living. Nor do you secularists get off. The secular governments of the last century (Nazi Germany, communist Russia and China) don't really support your argument that man without religion is a vast improvement over homo christianus.

Yeah, we wold be in big trouble if we ever elected a "non-"christian" as president of the United States...Oh wait, we already did that with Thomas Jefferson, and that turned out okay, I guess.

Poor Melanie. If you'd actually read The Book of Mormon, you'd find that the two major groups are both portrayed as at times noble and other times wicked, rather like people in real life. Those American Indians who descend from the Lamanites have nothing to be ashamed of. The Book of Mormon provides them a proud history.

That's what bothers me about the born-again posts I read. They're a mixture of profound ignorance and active imagination about a religion that has almost no resemblance to what I as a Mormon believe and practice.

Yes, I'm aware of our history, probably more so than anybody who has posted on this site. I wish born-agains would at least take the time for a little research beyond the perfervid shelves of their local "Christian" bookstore before they make statements accusing millions of people of deception. If the Church were the kind of weird conspiracy your paranoid minds have cooked up, it would have collapsed long ago.

Lacrima you said "Those American Indians who descend from the Lamanites have nothing to be ashamed of. The Book of Mormon provides them a proud history."

It's amazing that there are people in the 21st Century who believe that the American Indian descended from Israel...as the Book of Mormon points out.

Despite extensive DNA research that clearly shows no Semitic DNA whatsoever...and that native Americans are the decendents of people who migrated to North America from Siberia via the Bering Land Bridge approx. 10,000 years ago.

Now the LDS Church is changing what the Book of Mormon says about this, because it doesn't jive with science...despite their claim for 180 years (and yours in this post) that Native Americans are "Lamanites" decended from Israel.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=oYAiKTHoxVI

The Prophet Joseph Smith went through many great trials in his life. One time, you may recall that, when he was in Kirtland, Brother Behunin came to him and said, "Brother Joseph, many of the brethren have left the Church, and not only have they left the Church, but they have turned against the Church and become some of our most bitter persecutors. I will never leave the Church, but if I do, I will move out in the country and buy a little farm somewhere, and I promise you that I will never turn against the Church."

Joseph said something that was very prophetic. He said, "Brother Behunin, you do not know what you will do. When you join the Church of Jesus Christ, you leave neutral ground forever behind."

Before you says "You need to read the Book of Mormon"...let me state that I have. As a student of LDS Seminary, missionary of the LDS Church who served a 2-year mission, and a graduate of Brigham Young University I know what the Mormon Church's stance is.

After years of study and thoughtful deliberation, it pained me to come to the stark realization that the LDS Church is not what it claims. It's dogmatic claims fall apart in the face of objective scientific scrutiny. I also feel the Mormon leadership is disingenuous and extremely judgemental and harsh not only with other faiths and lifestyles, but also with it's own members. For these reasons, last year I resigned from the LDS Church along with my wife.

Lacrima, It is you who needs to do a little study on Mormonism. The church is now telling it's people that the American Indians aren't necessarily descended from the "Lamanites" of old...DNA testing has proved that idea false. The recent change in the introduction to the Book of Mormon now reads - among the ancestors of American Indians - instead of the principal ancestors of the American Indians. Yet another flip flop from your church. You are not so aware of your church history as you proclaim to be.

I hesitate to talk about the temple, but Bryce's comments are another example of that born-again ignorance that has been demonstrated so often in this series. The ritual he refers to has never been known as a "blood oath," but is rather a simple promise to put our duty to God above our own lives, something along the line of the early Christian martyrs. It's a promise that Bryce and Melanie's spiritual ancestors gave mine several opportunities to live up to.

The term "blood oath" is not really tightly defined, but probably refers to a promise made by many members in the first few generations after Joseph Smith to take vengeance on his murderers. That bit of anti-sociality is long gone and I doubt that any Mormon now living has direct experience of it. In fact, the Church has long ago reconciled itself with Illinois and Missouri, where many of the early persecutions took place.

So, it is correct to say that there is no blood oath in modern Mormonism.

Those who really want to know what Mormons believe about the temple as opposed to what born agains believe we believe can get a copy of Boyd K. Packer's book on the temple--lots of pictures and a surprisingly detailed statement on the ceremony. You can also go through any temple before it is dedicated. Enough are being built these days that the opportunity should not be hard to come by.

Some lunatic came into a news room ranting and raving and this made the Washington Post? Why is this news?

BTW Meso, you are ignorant of the Book of Mormon. There are several tribe's stories in the Book of Mormon, not just one from Jerusalem. The DNA stuff you use as your "proof" of your point is just silly to those who know the book.

As for trying to stir the pot on a campaign about blood oaths, Romney trying to make everyone Mormon, etc. Yeah, that makes lots of sense. Last time I checked, everyone that came to the Olympics in 2002 and the state of Massachusetts during Romney's term became Mormon. Yes, that's how it all happened. It's all a conspiracy. And yes Romney used the focus of all of the media during his faith in America speech to convert everyone too. Yes, that is his secret plan. Get real!

The Washington Post really does a diservice to it's readers when it publishes things like this as newsworthy. It's like reading the National Enquirer.

Ah, Meso. I have read all those things. Early members of the Church believed that history of The Book of Mormon encompassed all of North and South America. Most modern Mormons believe that its history is confined to a small part of Central America. That change was brought about by scholarly analysis, not by any official action of the Church and hardly counts as a flip flop. I doubt if you believe all the things about the Bible that your born-again ancestors once did.

As to DNA, it hasn't proved anything. DNA testing is rather more complex than you think. If you have the intelligence to follow up on it, go over to Dieneke's Anthropology Blog (http://dienekes.blogspot.com) which publishes abstracts of a lot of DNA studies. You'll see that for a number of reasons it will take a fairly substantial effort to say anything about your subject.

Keep in mind also that, although born agains say that the ancestors of The Book of Mormon peoples were Jewish, the book itself states quite clearly they were not. We have no real idea what they were, except Middle Eastern with probably an admixture of Egyptian blood. Likewise, the original stock of settlers consisted of around 30 people whose DNA would quickly have been diluted by intermarriage with locals, whose existance, despite the early rhetoric of the text, is also demonstrated in The Book of Mormon.

As a born again, you're used to popping off with the first thing that comes into your head. Do a little study and you'll see that DNA studies will bring you little solace and don't offer much of a challenge to Mormonism.

Isn't it strange that so many people in America are so critical of religions except Islam which is totally foreign to religions in America and believes anyone who is not a believer or convert of Islam, is an infidel? And I would imagine all those so critical of religion and concerned about Mitt Romney being Mormon would probably have no problem with a Muslim president. I can't believe all this hoopla about his religion when we have another evangelical christian like Huckabee, using religion the same as Bush has done,and the media is calling him sincere, touching, moving and in touch with people.

What political discourse of any value is provided by this article and the ensuing comments?

Mr. Moody's criticism clearly has no basis in, nor association with policy or the issues of the campaign. Further, this list of 75 comments is only evidence of deep-seated animosity by those who are opposed to Mormonism and rabid defensiveness by those who favor it.

Linking this religious side show to the political process does our country no favors. It only obscures the issues and distracts normally clear-thinking Americans from the factors that are most important in choosing the candidate they will support.

It is a shame that there is a double standard with regards to a public official's personal life. The media and the public accepted President Clinton's claim that his personal life was his own business when he was unfaithful to his wife and dishonest to the nation regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Yet, we can't leave alone Governor Romney's personal religious convictions which are equally personal, yet more predictive of honesty and fidelity than President Clinton's actions. Let's give Governor Romney's personal life the same respect we gave President Clinton's.

For the good of the future of our country, please let us spend our valuable time investigating and understanding the issues that face our next president, and who will provide the best solutions.

I watched a PBS documentary the other night which highlighted life in a 2000 yr old Monestary...I thought THAT was wierd. ;-) Pretty much every religion has it's own unique 'wierdness'. Anti mormons who have been raised as orthodox Christian just can't 'get' the fact that their religion is based on years of political discussions. (ie Nicean Creed) If that's the requirement for a true Christian religion, then Christianity may not be for me!
:-P If I recall, Jesus left the 'mainstream' religion and dogmatic practices of his time & created a new law. And if I recall, he didn't form a government commitee to clarify his doctrine.

I prefer the quote "organized religion is for the weak minded" as evident by the above ramblings (blogs) of the insane. Can't you see the divisiveness that religion has created?

Elder George! Aren't you a fine one--a burnt out Mormon taking out his frustrations on those of us who are still quite happy in the Church. The fact that you still refer to yourself as Elder suggests just how troubled you really are.

I, along with many other Mormons, believe that relatively few modern Indians are descended from the Nephites. That belief was not brought about by anything the Church said. It's the result of a close analysis of the text. I fail to see how better understanding a document suggests that the document is false, although maybe that works from a born-again point of view.

You guys sure don't seem to put much thought into anything. I remember a few years ago "First Things" reviewed a book called "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind." Turns out there is no evangelical mind, something the reviewer couldn't deny, although he seemed to think it impolite to say out loud.

As to your years of study. do you think you're the only one who has studied? I spent, I'm embarrassed to say, 14 years in college studying literature, history, law and languages. And I still believe Mormonism is true, as do many others who have deeply studied it. We are not quite the ignorant sheep you born agains like to claim.

You claim that Mormonism falls apart in the face of scientific scrutiny. Every secularist on this site would say the same thing about religion in general. What's your point? That I should give up my own thoughts and studies and blindly accept yours? That would be sheepish, wouldn't it?

I've met plenty of burnt out and bitter Baptists, but the Baptist Church thrives just fine without them. Likewise for the Catholics. You and your ilk who hang around the anti-Mormon sites really prove nothing except that life is full of shipwrecks. I'm sorry for you.

Mormonism has given me a wonderful life. A great wife, a good and loving family, friends everywhere I go and doctrines that lift my mind out of the muck of modern life.

I have attended Church for a month or more in 40 different LDS congregations in a dozen different countries. Everywhere I go, I see happy, loving people whose lives are being changed for the better, who have a deep and abiding faith in Jesus Christ and a determination to live by the principles He taught.

That's the Mormonism I know and love. If I were to give it up, what do you have to offer in return except for the bitterness and paranoia that seems so typical of the born again postings I see.? That's not much of a trade, my friend. I think you were cheated.

Mary Ann...

I guess we can all be accused of not remembering the high aspirations of the educational institutions which provided us so much opportunity in this world. I'll be the first to admit that I probably also fit in that group.

However...

You state that you graduated from Guilford College on your personal link.

http://www.guilford.edu/about_guilford/

At the above link it states:

"Guilford College draws on Quaker and liberal arts traditions to prepare men and women for a lifetime of learning, work and constructive action dedicated to the betterment of the world."

One of the listed traditions included:

"a values-rich education that explores the ethical dimension of knowledge and promotes honesty, compassion, integrity, courage and respect for the individual"

However this tragic piece of journalism on your part strikes me as quite sad. Not only does it provide a inappropriate outlet for the subject of your article, but it also leads to "yellow journalism" on the part of the Washington Post.

I would suggest that "constructive action"
was not served to either party...the subject of your article or members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The Silver Fox 801-947-0818

This guys is a joke. The BYU Cougar Club isn't some tight nit religious organization, it supports the sports programs at BYU...and even that many years ago, could've had hundreds/thousands of members. The school itself currently enrolls 30,000 students and even back when Mitt was there...had to have been around 15-20,000...and he knows him because he was the valedictorian? Ugh...what joke.

I think that was the whole point of the article don't you? - To cause devisivness during the campaign and keep people focused on the things that divide us and not recognize that those differences are really our Nation's unique strength. Of all the freedoms we enjoy, freedom to have differing views when it comes to religion is among one of our Nation's great strengths especially to be able to have those differing religious views among our nation's political candidates and public officials.

TM, if organized religion were for the weak minded, you'd have a hard time explaining why so many great minds have participated in organized religion.

Secularists somehow think they can foist all of mankind's sins onto religion and then bask in the innocence of thier own atheism. I would think that recent history would embarrass them somewhat. We've had several devoutely secular governments that have produce more blood and devestation than religion ever managed.

Years ago when I lived in the Congo, I worked awhile with chimpanzees, our putative closest relatives in the animal world with whom we seem to share over 98 percent of our genes. Turns out they are violent, bloody savage animals (but cute). I'd suggest that the violence of humanity is inherent in our genes and that religion has little to do with it.

So watch out my secular friend. Despite your cockiness, your genes are little different from mine.

Debrar,

That's total BS and you know it.

When the Bish stands up and says, there's an election coming, these are our values, this is what we believe, Candidate #1 agrees with those values and Candidate #2 doesn't; that's an endorsement from the pulpit -- plain and simple.

The Prophets tell us that no one can draw a line between Church and State.

The Prophets tell us that we must never substitute our judgment for theirs.

What part your own Prophets words don't you understand?

>There are too many faiths in America to be exclusive to one, and that is basically how Mormons feel a Mormon President should act. Reread Mitt's address on Faith in America.

Have you no shame?

You know that Mormonism teaches that they are the ONE TRUE CHURCH.

You know that Mormonism teaches that all other churches are in apostacy.

Milk before meat -- that's the way to get your message out.

I've participated in the lessions. Don't bother telling your lies to people who know the truth.

Does Romney have a rapid response team of Mormons ready to attack anyone who questions his religion? Mormons statistically are not a large percentage of the population but they sure pop up in a lot of comments. Just wondering...

My concern is due to friends I know who have been shunned by the Mormons. One was the descendant of the director of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. If you don't tow the line, you're shunned. This can be a very powerful tool, as Mormons are extremely family oriented. Who would risk being shunned by their family? It's a concern about Romney. I see far more politions willing to buck their church leaders (Catholics, for example, on abortion) than I see Mormons doing it.

All I read in the story is a violation of the US Constitution. There IS NOT supposed to be a religious test. All I hear about Romney and his candidacy is an ongoing RELIGIOUS TEST.

You just got to love all those "strict constructionist" evangelicals VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION!

I'd suggest that anyone with questions about the origins of the LDS church to read Fawn Brodie's excellent biography of Joseph Smith. This book is old, but still in print and it posits that Smith was a real snake-oil salesman and charlatan. Brodie was raised a Mormon, I believe, and also left the church.

Meso,

You misrepresent why The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has changed positions on Polygamy and giving the priesthood to people of black ancestry.

First, polygamy was given up by the LDS Church because the United States declared war on our church and officially made polygamy illegal in the United States. The United States then began confiscating LDS property, imprisoning our leaders, and taking away our political rights.

The LDS Church was given a choice, either continue to practice polygamy and have everything confiscated by the United States or submit to the laws of the United States and give up polygamy.

The prophet at that time, explained the choice our church faced in a General Conference that is a meeting for all members of our church. I quote:

"The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue--to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?"

We may still believe that polygamy has a place somewhere in some circumstances as the prophets in the Bible who practiced polygamy indicates, but the LDS Church chose to ban polygamy because the practice was declared illegal by the United States and one of the principles of our faith as espoused by Joseph Smith in the 1830s is that we will obey the laws of the land. As a Mormon, I simply accept that God will reveal at some point, in this life or the next, how polygamy fits in with His plans. I will then be left with a choice of whether to obey His plans or not.

It is fine if you don't agree with the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. But, if you study Christianity or religion very deeply, I believe you will find that our beliefs offer the best explanation for our existence, God's plan for us, and what has occurred since Christ's resurrection.

If you don't agree with my faith, that is fine. We can all still work together to promote healthy families, remove discrimination, and elect the best possible public servants even if we don't go to the same church.

Some would have you believe that to learn about the Mormon faith you only need to hear from within this church alone. There are still a few practicing Branch Dividians in Texas and others who escaped and left this Religion. Who would you wish to get your information from if wanting to join this particular group?

This article makes me laugh, the real issue here is not Mitt it is not the Mormon faith it is Michael Moody and his personal choices.

There are really one two ways that people leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. One is to request it, the second is to break the rules that are clearly spelled out.

It is no different from a person who chooses to drink and drive. By this point in our country every one knows drinking and driving is wrong yet people still do it. Likewise in the LDS church a you have to make a choice to act in a certin way.

It was Mikes choice and he is mad becasue someone set a rule that he did not like and he choice not to live by. Keep that in mind the next time you listen to an angry person who was once a member of the LDS church. Oh did he even both to mention why he is not a member, no because it would show what type of person he is.

Meso,

Regarding giving the Priesthood to people with black ancestry, the best explanation I have been able to find is that we adopted the practice of other "white" churches at the time. Joseph Smith actually gave the priesthood to some blacks and gave them more rights than most "white" churches at that time. However, while he was working on translating the Book of Abraham, he had some questions about the descendants of Ham who married Egytpus and were seemingly denied the priesthood by Noah. After this time, the church seemed to no longer give the priesthood to members of our church that had black ancestry and it became policy at some point. In the 1800s and 1900s, this was consistent with most churches. There is no formal revelation or explanation in our scriptures that explain why this change occurred.

The only official statement I can find regarding this subject is when the Apostles of our church fasted and were united in prayer to God about whether the policy should be discontinued in 1976.

Our leaders indicate they all felt inspired by God that the practice should be discontinued. Our Church then changed the policy in 1976 and again began giving the priesthood to members of our church that had black skin or black ancestry as Joseph Smith did initially in the beginning.

I also don't agree with the practice of discimination regarding who can hold the priesthood or not based on the color of their skin. But, even in the Bible, God only allowed some people to have the priesthood. Only the tribe of Levi were able to hold the Levitical or Aaronic Priesthood of all the descendants of Abraham. I don't understand why this is nor do I know if my church not giving the priesthood to blacks was correct. But, I'm glad the Apostles of my church were willing to fast and pray and change the policy of my church based on the answer they received. Whether the policy was incorrect to begin with or whether my church took too long to change the policy, I will ask God when I die to find out.

I am just glad that the United States of America has been setup to empower people to use the power of democracy to erode the evils of discrimination against anyone that has a just cause.

It is fine if you don't agree with the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. But, if you study Christianity or religion very deeply, I believe you will find that our beliefs offer the best explanation for our existence, God's plan for us, and what has occurred since Christ's resurrection.

If you don't agree with my faith, that is fine. We can all still work together to promote healthy families, remove discrimination, and elect the best possible public servants even if we don't go to the same church.

I'm a Mormon church member. I think its time for my church to get over our last iota of racism. Its time for us to denounce the Book of Mormon. Its racism teachings are disgusting. The idea that God would give dark skin to people for being wicked is absurd. So is absurd the idea that God would give white skin to people for repenting. Its also quite bigoted to associate dark skin with loathsomeness and white skin with delightsomeness. Its time to speak out against those shameful phrases in the Book of Mormon. I just hope that those who are offended for this continued racism will forgive us for this shameful arrogant racism history.

Religious controversy has no place in a political campaign, but I would like to point out that Webster's Dictionary simply defines Christian "as a person who believes in Jesus Christ and follows his teachings". That commonly accepted definition is entirely consistent with "Mormonism" as shown by even the most superficial examination of Mormon doctrine, including that taught in the Book of Mormon, which Mormons accept as another testament of Christ along with the Bible. Mitt Romney certainly qualifies, if anyone does, based on his stated beliefs, and demonstrated good character and lifestyle. Certain bigots have for years spread the big lie that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not believe in Jesus Christ. That's like saying the Pope is not Catholic. But if you repeat a lie often enough, apparently some ignorent people will believe it. The undeniable truth is that the LDS Church has always worshiped Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God and Savior of the world. Every prayer, sermon and ordinance in the LDS Church is offered in the name of Jesus Christ. In fact, Mormons go so far as to try to emulate the Savior, and actually live their lives (imperfect as they may be) in accordance with His example and teachings. Mormons don't preach for money either. (Maybe that's what peeves greedy televangelists and back-biteing "evangelicals" so much.)
No self-appointed "expert" has the right to arbitrarily redefine Christianity according to his own wisdom, so as to exclude the vast majority of those who humbly believe in Christ and seek to follow Him. Let God judge what's in our heart, not man. And let the voters judge a candidate on character, courage, competence and judgment, not private religious beliefs.

What's shameful about this re-hash of months-old pseudocontroversy is that the WaPo warmed it over on the morning of the New Hampshire primary. Shame on the WaPo for printing this!

It seems to me that there are a lot more glaring defects to Romney than his religion. His espousal of torture as an 'effective means of information gathering' is inexcusable. His appointment of Blackwater's Cofer Black to his advisory staff is one more disqualifier. If Romney were elected, Black's presence would be a glaring conflict of interest. Blackwater's chairman Prince has shown a strong desire to attach himself to the federal government. (And its shown incredible benefits on the balance sheets so far.) We must not let this happen. We cannot allow the US which is already overrun (if not completely controlled) by the military industrial complex to also fund private mercenary armies. A Romney administration will simply become act II of the Haliburton /Cheney story, only the cast of characters will include Cofer Black and Blackwater. I think this whole religion thing is a dodge. It will distract the public using a rather innocuous issue in order to prevent Blackwater from getting any press. Wake up. Blackwater has no motivation to end the war. Romney thinks we should double Gitmo. Should someone with such a disregard for 'self evident' truths be allowed to take the presidential oath of office?

Flipper and TM,

Just how deep does the paranoia go? I've been an active Mormon for 56 years and have never had a bishop even suggest how I should vote. Can you name one that has pushed his congregation in a certain direction? I doubt it.

Even back in the days when Church leaders got more involved in politics, they were often on opposite sides. The most famous case was the debate whether or not to join the UN. The then-president of the Church was on one side of the question and his first counselor, JR Clark, on the other.
Prophets are not slavemasters and I'm not sure what evidence you can come up with to suggest they are.

As to your dismay that we believe we are the true church, you certainly believe we are false, so you must believe something else is true. Having discovered that, should I now react to you with disgust and paranoia? I sometimes think you people need to be on meds.

As to milk before meat, that's how most teachers work, unless you were one of those geniuses who walked into kindergarten and sat down to a calculus text. Somehow I doubt it.

And dear TM, exactly how is the descendent of a director of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir supposed to act in order not to be shunned? Should he walk the streets humming hymns and waving his arms? I want to know so that if I ever find someone musical in my past I'll know what to do in order not to get kicked out of my congregation.

My wife and I both come from large LDS families, some of whom have gone inactive. They come to our homes and they don't smoke or drink. We go to theirs and don't sing hymns or leave religious tracts on the kitchen table. It works out quite well. Suggest it to your friend.

As to your suspicion about the Mormon response team, there aren't so many born agains in the US either, but you guys seem to hang around any site that offers a chance to bash Mormonism like so many blow flies around a new born calf. Should I befrightened? Will I be safe leaving my room tonight? Give me a break. What kind of mental world do you people live in?

The only reason I'm here is that I'm stuck in a hotel in Jordan waiting for a C-130 to take me back to Iraq. I'm bored, so I thought it might be fun to enter the world of born again paranoia, the Twilight Zone of Christianity.

Akers,

Thank you for perpetuating bigotry and ignorance in our society. Perhaps writing for a tabloid would suit you better. Hopefully, intelligent people will see this story and Moody's opinion for what it is--trash. Perhaps next week you can post lies about the Jews, and then the following week perhaps you could do the same for Islam, or Buddhism etc.

Utah seems to lead the nation in depression and young adult suicides. I believe that much of this might be related to people finding out about the history and truth of the Mormon religion.

Those who are devoted adherents of the faith are more likely to break off relations with any family or community member who decides not to continue to believe.

This lead me to believe that there are plenty of Mormons who might not believe in the faith but continue to follow because of the negative consequences of leaving such a tight knit group.

I have often wondered if this defense of the faith is similar to those with Stockholm Syndrome as these people might not really believe in what this religion believs but certainly are going to defend it on behalf of the one's they love.

Alex,

You're living proof that not all the idiots on this blog are born agains. The color divide in The Book of Mormon has nothing to do with race. If you've actually read the book, you'll be aware that both parties are descended from a common father and constantly refer to each other as brother throughout the book.

The situation is analogous to 19th century England, when the pale upper classes despised the sunburnt lower classes, who spent all their time in the fields. Not nice, but not racism.

The Book of Mormon is very clear that the Lamanites tend to be hunters and herders, whereas the Nephites tend to be city dwellers. Those two groups have always disliked each other, as they do even today. Ever heard the term "hick?"

When the Lamanites do finally, as it were, lighten up, it's after they take over the city of Zarahemla and both become Christian and sedentary city dwellers. In other words, their skin color has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture, location and social class. As I said, not nice maybe, but certainly not racism.

Pay some attention to what you read and maybe you won't sound like a bucket of rocks.

While I wouldn't intrude on the decision that each person must make in choosing a candidate to support, when any man chooses to run for the office of the president, it is vitally important to know something about the person's belief system and religion. It is completely fair to measure part of one's voting decision on such knowledge and to exclude an individual if they believe that there is something wrong with voting for a person whose religion they believe has some great defect that could adversely impact our nation. Just because a person believes such doesn't make them right or wrong necessarily, but that is the way our system works. We have to judge the nature of the person if we are going to make an informed decision. It is up to each candidate to plead their case and persuade the people that their belief system will only enhance their resolve and integrity to uphold the constitution and the laws on behalf of the people of this nation.

In a court of law people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. The campaign trail is not a court of law and it is un-American to think that a person's religion should not be scrutinized. If he were smoking the peace pipe while practicing the religion of the ancients I think the people would want to know. It is up to the candidate to convince the people at that point that he did not inhale.

So are you one of those wierd reporters there with nothign to do?

I congratulate you for mocking him and his obvious lack of credibility, but why even make a write up on this?

These comments should offer a useful overview for outsiders on the subject of Mormon issues; as a fifty year resident of "Zion," and a longtime participant on an Internet site mentioned (www.exmormon.org), I've seen and participated in free-for-all stuff like this since I was a teenager who decided LDS, Inc. was a toxic organization that numbed the minds and stole the time of my friends whom I loved and cared for.

Sadly, when LDS faithful are confronted with the objective facts about their religion and its history, they regularly resort to the dishonesty and prevarication displayed here, and almost automatically assume a "victim mode" that allows them to retain their identity and castigate their persecutors. From this bunker mentality, they launch their ad hominems and diatribes that are repleat with strawman arguments and fantasy and little else.

Poster "Lacrima" offers us an example with the statement, "The term "blood oath" is not really tightly defined, but probably refers to a promise made by many members in the first few generations after Joseph Smith to take vengeance on his murderers. That bit of anti-sociality is long gone."

The "bit of anti-sociality" referred to led to the largest mass murder of white civilians in the United States by other white civilians until the Oklahoma City bombing (The Moutain Meadows Massacre). And a 20-year coverup by the "Prophet" of the LDS Church followed, and those of us raised in Utah were never exposed to this history until we were adults and ferreted out the facts on our own.

Lacrima's pronouncements on the subject of DNA research are even more ludicrous. There's overwhelming proof--archaeological as well as geneitc-- that Native Americans descended from Siberians migrating to this continent 15-20,000 years ago, and the "Book of Mormon" puports to be a history of a Semitic people who sailed to the New World circa 600 B.C. These mythical folks built large civilizations, fought huge wars, and curiously, there's no trace of them, anywhere.

And please don't get me started on the subject of Mormon racism . . .

Small wonder Mormons are embarassed when this stuff surfaces and immediately attack the bearers of this bad news.

Meso,

I have studied the tenets of my faith for many years now and believe in my church and believe it to be an amazing organization for good, even if we church members are not perfect and cause our church to suffer from our imperfections.

We are organized to help the poor and the needy around the world regardless of their church affiliation or beliefs.

Our church enforces a policy of strict political neutrality and encourages its members to use their freedom to study and support the candidates we feel are the best ones. That is why a very liberal Democrat Senator Harry Reid and a very conservative Senator Republican Orin Hatch can both be Mormons with very different political beliefs.

Our church will not allow anyone to give a talk in church about which candidate to support.

Our church will not allow us to use church buildings or property to hold political events. Our church will not say one word in either support or criticism of Mitt Romney or other political candidates.

Our church will not allow church vans or buses to be used to get people out to vote. I wish the IRS would make other churches obey the law as well as our church does so everyone can try and decide for themselves whom to vote for. We believe that most people are smart enough to decide whom the best candidate is.

Only on policy issues like legalizing gambling will our church publish a policy that speaks against political policies that may increase evil in the world and enslave people to its practices.

We also don't have a paid ministry which is different from other Christian churches as well. No one in our church has a financial incentive to share our faith.

Paid ministers and pastors have a financial incentive to slander anything that might take paying church members from their congregation. That is why Christian churches with paid ministers are the most adept at putting out anti-everything pamphlets. Their mantra is that if you believe in Jesus, you are saved no matter how bad your actions are, except if you happen to believe in the teachings of a different Christian church that doesn't believe in the Nicean Creed. Thus, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is proclaimed a cult and a non-Christian church by these incentivized pastors because we don't believe in the Catholic teaching of the Nicean Creed regarding Jesus and Heavenly Father being one person. There are ample scriptures in the Bible explaining our position on this issue.

Thus, the pastors of many churches tell their congregation how to vote and that if they speak to Mormons themselves to find out what they believe, they are in danger of going to hell. I can fully understand disagreement about beliefs, but this is totally illogical.

It is fine if you don't agree with the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. But, if you study Christianity or religion very deeply, I believe you will find that our beliefs offer the best explanation for our existence, God's plan for us, and what has occurred since Christ's resurrection.

If you don't agree with my faith, that is fine. We can all still work together to promote healthy families, remove discrimination, and elect the best possible public servants even if we don't go to the same church.

The "Bish" NEVER stands up to discuss any candidate or election. In fact, the church specifically instructs Bishops not to do this - ever!

The church encouraged polygamy, yes, but never stated it was the only way to salvation. In fact, first wives had to agree to a subsequent wife...with no requirement that she do so or any threat that she would lose her right to salvation because she didn't agree. (I have at least one ancestor who was granted a church divorce because her husband took a second wife without her approval.) Also, I've not seen evidence of pre-teen or even teenage polygamous marriages in the real LDS church back in the 1800's. You must have it confused with the bogus, so-called fundamentalist Mormons, who are not LDS and never were!

The practice of polygamy came up against another LDS belief to obey the laws of the land. Apparently, the church places a very high premium on obeying the law (or as Christ would say, "Render unto Caeser that which is Caeser's..."), and the change is evidence that polygamy or lack thereof is not tied to the path to salvation.

There's much more to dispute about several of the posts here, but I don't have the time nor the inclination.

I will point out, however, that I am LDS. I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and came to fulfill God's promise that ALL of us will have the opportunity to return to Him. I believe the Old and New Testaments and the Book of Mormon are true and are testaments of the Glory of God and Jesus Christ. I pray that our country will prevail in righteousness and that all our leaders will receive His guidance.

Just a word to those ex-members who do not wish to be contacted by the church: I hope you would change your minds, but if not, all you need to do is let your Bishop know to mark your records "DNC" (do not contact), and your wishes will be respected.

Karen,

The source for details about teen age polygamy within the early church exists on the churches own geneology website. I would suggest you not go there if you are not prepared for assimilation.

SL Cabbie,

Unless you're a lot older than I am you didn't have to ferret out anything. "Mountain Meadows Massacre" (Juanita Brooks) was published in 1950 and contains all the information you could want. Both it and a more recent book on the subject exonorate the president of the Church from responsibility for the massacre, although the Church recently did accept repsonsibility and apologized to the descendants of the survivors. I haven't got a copy of the new book yet, but Brooks, as I recall, doesn't bring up blood oaths as the problem.

Both her book and the review of the new one suggest that it was a continuation of old animosities from the east. Not nice, but again, doesn't support your thesis.

And why are you people so wrapped up in conspiracy? Had to wait until you were an adult to find the facts? You could have found them in any bookstore or library.

As to the DNA, I don't disagree with you that the majority of American Indians are descendants of Siberians. That doesn't change the fact that there is no reason to disbelieve The Book of Mormon story of a small group (30 or so) of Semitic settlers who came to Central America and founded a civilization. Current studies suggest the actual area of Book of Mormon settlement was rather small, a few hundred miles in diameter at most (see "Mormon's Map" by John L. Sorensen. If you have a tough time with libraries or bookstores, have a friend get it for you.)

If the DNA evidence were as strong as you say it is, believe me, the media would be trumpeting it from the mountain tops. Be a little patient. Maybe the wind will blow your way, but it hasn't yet.

You say there is no evidence of advanced civilizations or great battles in Central America? Where do you keep that cab of yours parked? Under a rock?

As to Mormon racism, if you'd do a little research through some back issues of "Dialogue" you'd find an article describing Mormon racial attitudes before the ban on blacks receiving the priesthood was listed. We were pretty much indistinguishable from the US population as a whole. Not great perhaps, but hardly monstrous.

I was once in a military exercise and wound up one evening sharing a tent with an old black first sargent. He asked me at one point if I knew anything about Mormons. I said, "a bit" and he replied,"Best damned people I ever knew." Seems he'd been transferred to a guard unit in Ogden. He said his neighbors treated him and his family like gold. His wife and kids joined the Church and when he was transferred to the California National Gaurd, where I met him, they refused to leave Utah. He was trying to get transferred back to Ogden as quickly as possible so he could see his son off on a mission. There's some Mormon racism for you.

There are only 2 ways to look at The Book Of Mormon, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint. They are either what they claim to be or they aren't. Joseph Smith was either truly an instrument in the Lord's hands
or He was a 14 year old mastermind genius-still fooling millions of people today.

DNA is a man made test with .??% room for error as they off the bat admit. Would Heavenly Father allow anyone to line up every fact needed to neatly prove that the BOM is true?

Do we have Noah's Ark today? Do we have the cross that Jesus died on? Do we have the stone tablets (the unbroken set:) that had the 10 commandments on them? Did Heavenly Father allow anything in the New Testament to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt?

We are walking by faith. That leaves us with some trusting to do. I can't prove that my Savior existed, but I feel Him. I know it's true.

Take a look at any 14 year old young man. What are they usually? Unsure of themselves, quiet, a little backwards, slightly geeky-and that's now, here in this modern fast paced world! Think back to the 1800's when children still were disciplined and had respect for their authorities. I picture a Joseph Smith that was loyal to his family, humble, helpful, a good son. He knew he didn't have all the answers, he wasn't cocky or boastful. He was seeking, full of questions. Could he without "Google" :), or other means of research, just a few years later have "written" the BOM from a 3rd grade education? Without even a ballpoint pen to do so?

Everyone is right the BOM and The Church are either miracles or frauds.

Could Joseph Smith have been such a mastermind genius who had such knowledge of the Bible that he didn't leave out one part of the instructions from the New Testament?

Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ
Repentance
Baptism by Immersion as Jesus Himself did
Gift of the Holy Ghost by the Laying on of hands
12 Apostles
Elders in groups of 70
Missionaries sent 2 by 2
on and on

Could he have done that? They didn't even own tractors back then. Could he, having been a farmer's son have created a religion with every point in it without
help? After being brought up as a farmer in the fields all day-acre and acre by
hand/hoe/horse n plow?

Most people who don't like Joseph Smith don't like that he became a polygamist. They think he wrapped a religion around his need for sex. Surely there would have been other ways to fulfill that need. Especially without creating a religion and bringing so much attention to it! Some men fulfill that need today, it's called cheating on their wives down at motel 6, which often leads to children on the side left to chance.

I know that people say all kinds of things against the early Church leaders and I ask: has anyone ever slandered your names? have people ever said anything about you that was a half truth? or a stretch or even an out and out lie? Would it have been any different for Joseph Smith? He isn't here to defend himself. People on the Internet can twist things however they want to.

Could a man of humble beginnings, who never made a dime for the religion he brought forth, and was killed, in part because he was going to run for the Presidency of the United States, still have such an impact on so many people from the grave today if it wasn't all true?

Either "ALL" things are possible with God or they aren't.
It's either true or it isn't....

If I had lived in the time of Samuel the boy prophet, would I have believed he was a prophet?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints either has Heavenly Father's
plan of salvation or it doesn't...
It is either true or it isn't...

Amazing. Akers tries so hard to make her editorial objective--"dirty tricks"--and set up Moody as a naughty boy, but it's hard to justify putting something like this, something so unimportant and irrelevant, out there on this particular day. Hm.

Want to read something interesting? If you can find a copy of "Nightfall at Nauvoo" by Taylor, you might find it quite enlightening.

Ok, so now that everyone knows everything there is to know about Mormons (as blogged by know-it alls from both sides), do you think that we can get back to electing the next President of the United States?

Get over it folks. All religions have weird, funny, mis-understood beliefs. So what? I couldn't give a rats behind what you think about my particular religion and I don't give a damn what you believe.

This is politics people. God and/or Jesus are not on the ballot.

Let's elect someone who can get us out of the impending fiscal calamity we will be in before the elections.

People need to grow up and realize that this is a free country, and everyone, including Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, McCain, Thompson, Hillary and Obama have a right to worship any way they want, when they want, and to whom they want. Get freaking over it!!!!!

So many religious people (notice I didn't use the word "Christian" so as not to offend anyone) and so many intolerant, judgmental, sinless and bigoted people.

You make God proud!

Dan,

It was quite common in prior centuries for girls to marry in their early teens. It's not a scandal and the Borg won't assimilate you if you know about it. (Again, are you anti-Mormons all paranoid?)

If the Book of Mormon folks were confined to such a small area in Central America then why does God send Oliver Cowdery to preach to the Lamanites in Missouri? And why in Helaman 3:8 of your Book of Mormon does it say that those folks spread from "sea south to the sea north, from sea west to the sea east" if this small area of Central America was the place you now attribute to something your own book says happened in so vast an area? And how do you suppose these folks pulled their chariots if horses didn't exist here until Columbus arrived centuries later? And no, DNA doesn't aritrarily rearrange itself in the short time since BofM times. And no, Joseph Smith didn't journey to Central America to find the gold plates, he found them in New York. Your book just doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. Maybe that's why they have to keep changing it.

I did not necessarily enjoy reading this article, but the headline caught my attention (as does most things that are controversial). However, I did enjoy reading all the comments and insights. I agree, if you want correct information about the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, visit mormon.org or lds.org.

Whether it be be Romney, Huckabee, Obama, whomever, it is evident that religion is a hot topic right now.

There is an independent film coming out this month titled: "Article VI: Faith. Politics. America.he film was directed by Bryan Hall and Jack Donaldson. It is an intense discussion of the role of faith in politics. The title is taken from Article Six of the United States Constitution: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

If you haven't seen the trailer I suggest you check it:

http://www.articlevithemovie.com/

This is powerful film. Made me think that we as Americans really haven't come as far as I once believed.

Dear Nameless,

Your questions have long been answered. Do a little reading of something besides anti-Mormon lit. It will do you some good.

As to Book of Mormon changes, who changed it? You could still get by quite well with the 1830 edition and the Church still sells it. There have been some spelling and other textual changes over the years, but none to greatly change any meaning. If you were to do some research (the four-volume edition with all the changes listed is for sale on line at BYU Bookstore) you'd see that for yourself. As I mentioned above, the Church sells almost all the materials the born agains use to denounce us. Must be frustrating for you.

Lacrima says: "Elder George! Aren't you a fine one--a burnt out Mormon taking out his frustrations on those of us who are still quite happy in the Church. The fact that you still refer to yourself as Elder suggests just how troubled you really are."

My response: Wow! All I did was express my opinion...just like you did. Why are you so offended by that? Incidentally, many churches use the title of "Elder", the LDS Church doesn't have a copyright on it.

Lacrima says: "I, along with many other Mormons, believe that relatively few modern Indians are descended from the Nephites. That belief was not brought about by anything the Church said."

My response: Lacrima, it not the Nephites, it's the Lamanites (descended from Native Americans.

Lacrima says: "You guys sure don't seem to put much thought into anything."

My response: When you say "you guys" what do you mean?

Lacrima:
"As to your years of study. do you think you're the only one who has studied?"

My response: No. I know a lot of people who have studied it.

Lacrima: I spent, I'm embarrassed to say, 14 years in college studying literature, history, law and languages. And I still believe Mormonism is true, as do many others who have deeply studied it. We are not quite the ignorant sheep you born agains like to claim."

My response: I never said anyone was an arrogant sheep in my posts. Incidentally, I am not a "born again". However, I find it rude that you refer to born again Christians in that matter.

Lacrima: "You claim that Mormonism falls apart in the face of scientific scrutiny. Every secularist on this site would say the same thing about religion in general. What's your point? That I should give up my own thoughts and studies and blindly accept yours? That would be sheepish, wouldn't it?"

My response: Why are you so defensive? I have never asked you to believe anything. I do, however, agree with you that most religions in general fall apart in the face of scientific scrutiny. Especially Mormonism and the Book of Mormon. Any non-Mormon archeologist, DNA expert will agree with that. The Book of Mormon claims thousands upon thousands of people who used metal weapons, tools, animals, and plants that have never been found in the Americas during the time of the Book of Mormon. Don't you find that odd? There is not a conspiracy to shut Mormonism down, but Mormonism not only lacks evidence it goes against many of the laws of science.

Lacrima says: "You and your ilk who hang around the anti-Mormon sites really prove nothing except that life is full of shipwrecks. I'm sorry for you."

My response: You say this simply because I have expressed my views. For what it's worth, I have a very full life with a loving wife, child, extended family, and many loving friends. There is no reason to feel sorry for me, I am truly happy. My happiness has grown exponentially since I left your church. It was a difficult decision, but I am truly glad I did.

Lacrima says: "Mormonism has given me a wonderful life. A great wife, a good and loving family, friends everywhere I go and doctrines that lift my mind out of the muck of modern life."

My response: "Great. Life is good."

Lacrima says: "That's the Mormonism I know and love. If I were to give it up, what do you have to offer in return except for the bitterness and paranoia that seems so typical of the born again postings I see.? That's not much of a trade, my friend. I think you were cheated."

My response: Not speaking for "born agains" (as you call them), because I am not one. Just because someone decides they don't believe in your faith means they are to be pitied or referred to as "bitter" or "paranoid". I just find it interesting how you so willingly give your opinion on the Mormon church, but God forbid, anyone else have a differing view. Defensiveness, name calling, and very negative assumptions is not a civil way to discuss this.

While a religious litmus test for candidates to the highest office in the land should be a non-issue, Mitt Romney's adherence to a religious doctrine, that many feel borders on cultism, has left him vulnerable to critics who claim his loyalty to Mormon founder, Joseph Smith, is similar in scope to followers of Jim Jones, David Koresh or L. Ron Hubbard, to name a few.

Romney's speech stressed an American tenet, the belief in the "equality of humankind", yet, while on an LDS mission to France in the 1960's, he was preaching that blacks were an inferior race and not worthy to hold office in his church. His speech contained no reference to this former doctrine or any hint of the fact that women are treated as second-class citizens in Mormonism.

Reminiscent of JFK's Catholic speech nearly a half century before, Romney certainly appeared presidential in former president Bush's library setting, but his words contained nothing of substance to those seeking to understand his religious beliefs. Many, familiar with Mormonism, question whether an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution would take precedence over his secret oath taken years earlier swearing allegiance to church hierarchy.

With many voters rushing to their computers to explore Romney's quirky religion, much of that religion's checkered past will come to light and perhaps expose it to more sunshine than it's white and delightsome image can endure and consequently derail this steadfast Mormon's bid for presidential office.

I thought the Washington Post was a professional organization. Why would you print blather like this and call it news? Can you please stop being part of the problem of spreading misinformation to the citizens of this country and start being part of the solution?

We'd all appreciate it.

Once last comment to all those who say why can't we just be nice? I have no intention of voting for Romney. I don't like the guy and have strong suspicions that he'll quicky develop New York Times Syndrome and become just another RINO.

That said, I didn't bring up his religion, nor did the other Mormons who read this site. We have no objection to it at all. It was the born agains and the secularists who attack him for his religious views, often in ways that are pathetically mendacious or ignorant.

Although I have received nothing but good through my membership in the Church, I realize others have had their problems. That's OK, it's life and it doesn't work the same way for all of us. I just don't see why the haters and the embittered should control this particular conversation.

Whatever I think of his politics, Romney is a decent human being who deserves a shot at the presidency without having his religion attacked. Whether or not Mormonism is true, it's adherents tend to be decent, law abiding people and that's really all that's important as far as his personal life is concerned.

Hammer the guy for his politics. I do. But, I feel no sense of shame at all in defending my religion and his from these weird, paranoid and wrong headed attacks on a religion that has brought about far more good than harm.

The secularists don't bother me much. They're kind of cute in their way, and I rather suspect that they like Oedipus (another secularist, if you recall the play) will discover their blindness soon enough.

But I have a hard time with the born agains, whose own religion is under constant attack by both secularists and liberal Christians. You'd think they would have developed some sympathy for other believers, even those whose beliefs they don't share. You'd think they'd at least be willing to tone down the nasty rhetoric, but instead they hand around like rabid dogs, snapping and growling mindlessly everytime Romney comes into view?

What gives? We all know you don't believe in Mormonism. You're Protestants and that's OK. We don't hate you for it. Just move on a little and see if you can't find something political to attack Romney for. Or, go out and campaign for Huckabee. That's OK, too. Just get over the religion thing. Romney won't become a Baptist anytime soon.

Lacrima says: "I just don't see why the haters and the embittered should control this particular conversation."

My response: Who is controlling the conversation? How many postings have you made where you have called people names, used negative stereotypes, etc?

Lacrima says: "The secularists don't bother me much. They're kind of cute in their way, and I rather suspect that they like Oedipus (another secularist, if you recall the play) will discover their blindness soon enough.
But I have a hard time with the born agains...You'd think they would have developed some sympathy for other believers, even those whose beliefs they don't share. You'd think they'd at least be willing to tone down the nasty rhetoric, but instead they hand around like rabid dogs, snapping and growling mindlessly everytime Romney comes into view?"

My response: And you wonder why people call Mormons judgemental???

Here is Mike Moody's (self-authored?) bio on the Revelation Press website:

http://www.therevelationpress.com/authorbio1.htm

Can anyone really take this guy seriously?

Will the REAL God please stand up! Geez, what is it going to take for all the religous to come to the realization that GOD is as real as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Actually, the easter bunny is GOD, as he/she makes eggs come out of its ______, the miracle is that people then put them to their mouth and eat them, that's the MIRACLE. So therefore, all praise be to GOD. For only the Truly Devoted would eat S_H_I_T while finding fault with one another.

To Through the peephole,

If you and the other members of your family will write letters to your Bishop asking to have your names removed from the Church's membership rolls, church representatives will stop contacting you. As long as you are a member, the contacts will continue. By the way, if they didn't care about you they wouldn't visit you.

I love it when the Pagan Sects fight among themselves.

And Jed (10:21 PM)said "Perhaps they should ask this question: If Jesus was not part of a great, preordained plan, why was he prophesied of and looked forward to hundreds, even thousands of years before his coming? From a Mormon perspective, on two continents?" Well, Jed, perhaps you should consider the possibility that he wasn't. Perhaps he was one of the many descendants of David that was hoped to be the messiah, but did not fulfill the prophecies. There have been several, including Josef and Jakov (known to some as James), right up to a Lubuvich rabbi a few years ago. None of them has yet ushered in the time of Peace.
(Oh, and if you read the Gospels, you may realize you are waiting for the third coming)

my opinion is "keep religion out of the government." As a resident of salt lake city (and a non-mormon) i find the aforementioned communistic-socialist theocracy theory disturbing, and i never really understood why the LDS church continuously influences their people to vote conservative, and now, after reading this article, i think i know. The LDS church wants a monopoly on social services to subvert the secular services, forcing those citizens who require aide to join the church in order to receive it. the most pragmatic reason for this would be the payback the church would receive in tithing later, after said families become more stable, and while the essential message and intention of the church may be percieved as beneficial to the people, so was the nationalist movements of pre-WWII germany and Italy.

and for that matter, the nationalist movements of the present day U.S.

not to insinuate anything or nothing.

thanks for having this discussion.

btw. i think Utah Mormon has his head on right. probably one of the only sane and composed people on this forum.

go UM.

Hopefully, I am another sane and composed writer (and Latter Day Saint)...but let's face it, without Dr. Phil here to back me up, I've got nothing...

So basically I am a Latter Day Saint who believes essentially what shaesinister does...the religious right scares me. All too often, the religious right tend towards seeing Jesus as a GI or a tank driver...

I believe in the Book of Mormon, I believe that Jesus Christ has made us "joint-heirs" (essentially, what Moody is talking about when says we become Gods...total distortion if you ask me), I believe in all the fundamental teaching of the gospel. Yet I believe Moody to be wrong...simply put. I have made no blood oath against the United States; in fact, I would willingly participate in active duty if called upon to do so. If anything, the Constitution is revered nigh unto scripture in LDS culture. Active Latter Day Saints are throughout gov't: in the CIA, FBI, the Cabinet, and other branches. The talk of Mike Moody is the kind of talk that leads to round-ups and institutionalized repression (though such things are not likely to happen given our poststructuralist environment).

Basically, Moody is a wannabe rabble-rouser who seems to aching for a fight. Bluster, not truth.

Moody's message of hate is nothing more than a message of pure hate. Disgusting and not worthy of print. Nor worthy of my time to respond any further. Slanderous hate speech is hurtful; however, whether religious hatred, racial hatred, or hatred based on sexual orientation. None of it is worthy of our attention.

As a proud Pagan I came to the conclusion that many people just don't understand Gods and Goddesses enough to be a part of a religion. I do think that judging other faiths is a fair thing to do as you examine your own faith in light of life around you. All religions are cults to some degree at some point in their history and frankly, Mormonism is one of the scarier ones. There were many similar cults started in the 1800's and most withered away but Smith had a good plan for keeping people in line and so now there are millions of people who believe in magic golden tablets and all the rest of it. Personally it makes no sense whatsoever to me and so Romney himself makes no sense whatsoever to me. I'm not suggesting he quit his faith or that it's a bad religion, but it really makes no sense and is a lot sillier than even the Catholic cult. I stick with the Goddess. Mom doesn't judge us or make us wear funny hats or breed like flies. She just doesn't want us to hurt our brothers and sisters. We should lighten up on Mitt and the rest of the runners. We should pity their need for approval and their lust for power. None of them seem very happy.

Moody was wrong, it is this that a mormon MALE becomes a celestial god (note little g). The more children and wives he has enables him to quickly populate the little planet he will receive for being a good and obedient mormon. And since when does a secular newspaper columnist from this particular rag write critically of an ex-mormon who happens to not like Mitt Romney? Just someone else you and your cult can ridicule. He is basically right about the mormon religion, it is a cult, a very dangerous cult. Good God, this entire newspaper has devoted itself and its writing staff to being anti-christian, but will stick up for anything or any religion not in line with the Holy Bible. I doubt if any of these employees have read the Bible or the book of mormon (note lower case letters) to engage in any knowledgeable debate. Besides Mary Ann is a muslim and hates christians, that is why she wrote this ridiculous article.

I was wrong. I hadn't noticed Elder George's last reply, so now I'm writing more.

As to born agains, they hate to be called Protestants and I refuse to let them co-opt the name Christian. Since they constantly proclaim their born again status, born agains seems to suit. It is hardly worse than calling us Mormons when our preferred name is Latter-Day Saint or LDS.

As to the civility of the discourse, I have been reading articles on Romney for awhile now and find it remarkable that everyone is an opportunity for some born again, often more than one, to attack Mormonism. In fact the very moody fellow who started this discussion off, is typical of born agains in my experience--full of anger and wild statements, short on fact and Christian decency. I find it just a bit sick and I guess my irritation shows.

If you want to read a polite discourse between an Evangelical and a Mormon, read "How Wide the Divide" by Blomberg and Robinson. In it two educated people politely discuss their religous beliefs. It's quite different from most of the born again stuff I've seen appended to Romney articles.

Your own writings, whether you are born again or not, are of the same ilk. You state that you can not believe anyone in the 21st century would believe.... That's fine, but what does it have to do with politics? One could make the same statement about Huckabee's belief in the virgin birth with the exact same irrelevance to the political discussion.

The fact that you choose to inject something so seemingly irrelevant into the discussion suggests you're part of either the born again or secularist group. I assumed you were born again because of your use of the religious title.

Other groups use it, but not often as a public title. The only person I've ever known to do so outside the LDS Church was a friend of mine who was a Dutch Reformed pastor. I expect you are not one of them. On the other hand, I have seen former Mormons use their former titles as a way of gaining a bit of panache among their new-found Protestant friends. At any rate I find it a bit odd that you would call yourself by a religious title on a secular blog. Are you really an elder in some other church? Or, are you just being cute?

In your second letter, you make a great deal of your status as a former Mormon and the copious study that led you from the Church. Again, this is typical of Mormons who have moved over to Protestantism--check the cult shelf of your local "Christian bookstore, and you'll see what I mean.

You didn't claim that your personal conclusion after all this study was that Mormonism is not for you, but rather that objective science proves the Church wrong. Very impressive statement, but I doubt that you have either the training or the knowledge to make it. Others with as much study time and intelligence as you have come to the opposite personal conclusion. There is far more evidence on the other side than you seem to be willing to admit.

The verdict, especially, on the DNA evidence is still out and to think otherwise is a bit wishful. So, yes, I do find it a bit arrogant on your part to say that objective science supports you, when all you mean to say is that you came to a personal conclusion.

Personal conclusions are fine. There are probably close to six billion people out there who have or would personally conclude that Mormonism is not for them. Doesn't bother me in the least. But, when you call upon a higher authority to back your personal claims, I hope my reply was not defensive, but rather offensive. Arguments by authority are inherently weak.

Do I find it odd, you ask, that Mormonism should be out of step with objective science? Not at all. I grew up at a time when objective science was predicting a new ice age and now it is predicting global warming. My first geology text at UCD found the idea of plate tectonics quite offensive; now every school kid accepts it. Objective science, if you trace its history, has often been full of beans. It's better to think for yourself. Eventually objective science will get 'round to the evidence.

I'm glad, however, for your new-found happiness, although, if you're so happy, I wonder why you feel compelled to tell your story and justify yourself in completely irrelevant forums. You remind me a bit of the Ancient Mariner, who felt compelled to tell his story to every passer-by until he got it off his chest. Probably won't happen, but good luck.

Lacrima equated former Mormons with the Klu Klux Klan.

It is this kind of vapidity and lack of thought that makes Mormonism, in my opinion, so dangerous.

Seriously. If you want to know the truth about Mormonism, vist www.exmormon.org and http://www.utlm.org

Why not SIMPLY ASK ROMNEY where he stands on the separation of church and state!!!? I understand the separation of church and state is so strong among Mormons that they will allow NEITHER political speeches from their pulpits NOR political rallies in their buildings. Evangelical churches DO politicize from the pulpit. They held prayer meeting on behalf of Huckabee in their churches. So which of those candidate poses the greater threat to religious freedom?!

From this link:
http://youdecide.homestead.com/index.html

Website includes video re-enactments about questionable Mormon temple rituals. Please visit the site.

WOULD YOU VOTE FOR A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WHO????

* Has performed a death oath ritual hundreds of times where he has drawn his thumb across his throat from side to side as if he were slitting his own throat?

* Has performed another death oath ritual hundred of times where he has drawn his thumb across his abdomen as if he were disemboweling himself?

* Believes that when he gets to heaven he will have multiple Goddess wives who will have unlimited sexual relations with him so as to populate his own planet where he reigns as God?

PLEASE WATCH THESE VIDEOS. I EXPERIENCED THESE RITUALS FIRSTHAND - AND THEY SCARED ME TO DEATH.

I was only 21 years old at the time, but my first thought was - "What could happen if the person who convinces people to do these strange rituals asked them to do something illegal or immoral?"

I am a former Mormon. I graduated from Brigham Young University. I was married in the Washington, DC temple.

I vehemently believe in freedom of religion. However, I am concerned that someone who professes questionable beliefs and who has participated in cult-like rituals might become our President.

I believe in full disclosure and Mitt Romney says that he also believes in full disclosure. As such, I am presenting these videos so that YOU DECIDE what you think about this information. This information is not widely available to the general public.

Mormon's state that what goes on in their temples is "sacred, not secret" so here are some of the rituals that I myself have participated in when I was a Mormon.
After learning of and participating in these rituals I could no longer hold this faith in my heart and in my mind.

I believe that God is fantastic, creative, kind and loving.

When I exited the Washington, DC Mormon temple after going through the rituals for the first time I was asked by the other Mormon's who accompanied me what I thought about what I had seen and experienced.
My response was that if those ceremonies and teaching were indeed of God, then I would rather go to hell with the non-Mormons.

I told them that my God doesn't require secret death oaths, doesn't require a new secret name for me to be recognized so I could get into heaven, doesn't require me to know a memorized script to get into heaven, doesn't require me to wear secret underwear that was put on me at the end of several ceremonies where I was totally naked - except for an xray gown type of covering with fabric on the front and back, but with totally open sides.

If you would like to speak with me about what I have written here please feel free to contact me: I feel that this information needs to be disseminated immediately.

Voters must have this "sacred, not secret" information so they can make their own decisions about whether a practicing Mormon would be their choice under all circumstances of national and international security.

How meaningful will an oath of office be for someone who makes death oaths to their God and in the name of their religion?

Dianne Pearce
Email: dpearce@erols.com
Phone: 636-675-5232

See actual video re-enactments of questionable Mormon temple rituals:

http://youdecide.homestead.com/index.html

Elder George, in reply to your last blog, as I have mentioned before, it is not Mormons who are interjecting religion into the debate, it's largely the born agains, with some secular participation. If Mormons didn't reply, the born agains would control the conversation. Isn't that a bit obvious? Personally, I'd much rather discuss politics.

And let's see: I'm writing back to people who call my religion a "very dangerous cult" denounce it in rather nasty terms and I'm judgemental for calling the writers snappy and growly? Just how, for example, would you characterize Moody's diatribe? Or Candy's letter?

I can appreciate where your sympathies lie, but I think you're being just a bit hypocritical here. You may have noticed that although I've been tough on several writers, I've offended no one's religion. Would that the born agains could say the same.

And, yes, Candy dear, we did notice your very clever use of capitalization. A mind like yours will no doubt bring the evil empire crashing down before long. Perhaps, if you could just get clever with your punctuation . . . .

Elder George, in reply to your last blog, as I have mentioned before, it is not Mormons who are interjecting religion into the debate, it's largely the born agains, with some secular participation. If Mormons didn't reply, the born agains would control the conversation. Isn't that a bit obvious? Personally, I'd much rather discuss politics.

And let's see: I'm writing back to people who call my religion a "very dangerous cult" denounce it in rather nasty terms and I'm judgemental for calling the writers snappy and growly? Just how, for example, would you characterize Moody's diatribe? Or Candy's letter?

I can appreciate where your sympathies lie, but I think you're being just a bit hypocritical here. You may have noticed that although I've been tough on several writers, I've offended no one's religion. Would that the born agains could say the same.

And, yes, Candy dear, we did notice your very clever use of capitalization. A mind like yours will no doubt bring the evil empire crashing down before long. Perhaps, if you could just get clever with your punctuation . . . .

Lacrima: It's pretty clear you are a "do as I say, not as I do" type of person. You talk about respect, but it's clear you don't have a clue how to give it. It's apparent that debate for you is the juvenile and holier-than-thou pulpit-spewing and name calling you insist in engaging in.

You're obviously unwilling to admit the damning evidence of countless metals, plants and animals that are claimed to be in the Americas during the time of the Book of Mormon in spite of the scientific community saying so many listed simply didn't exist. DNA evidence...what can I say that already hasn't been said numerous times.

Believe what you want, it's your tithing money not mine. You can belittle secularism all you want, but it is secularism that has kept this country from becoming a theocratic joke of a country that stifles human, economic, and scientific progress.

For the record, I think almost all organized religions but especially the Mormon Church...a sexist church with a stark history of blatant racism. The same Mormon Church that will spend over $2 billion on a shopping mall in Salt Lake City, hundreds of millions of dollars on a self-serving tabernacle in Salt Lake City, and millions on a hotel on the North Shore of Oahu...while hundreds of thousands of it's own members go to bed hungry every night in third-world countries. Yes, it's jaw-dropping.

Mitt Romney has shown time and again, he will lie as he did two months ago when he tells the press his father walked with Martin Luther King on Washington...and it was the press who uncovered the fact this never happened. It's just a fabricated lie. There are numerous other examples.

Elder George Carlin - A proud secularist, ExMormon, humanist, and American

almanojodo you are wrong. The Mormon church DOES preach on political issues.

I remember as a young Mormon being lectured in church and via special letters from the first presidency on how evil the Equal Rights Amendment was! How we should campaign and vote against it.

As I was a young Mormon in Britain, this acted as a reminder that the Mormon hierarchy really could NOT grasp the fact that not everywhere in the Mormon Church was in America.

Hopefully your faith will sustain you. Your tolerance for one another needs some work. I would not want to spend eternity with you people. Sounds like hell to me. I don't need religion to know you who profess to know God have a long way to go.

Matt,

It's called an analogy. It doesn't equate two thing, but, rather, says that the two things have an equivalent relationship with two other things. That is, KKK hates blacks and therefore is not likely to be a neutral source of information about them. Ex-mormons seem to dislike Mormons and are therefore not likely to be a neutral source of information about them.

If that's too hard for you to understand, maybe you can find a friend who got a reasonable score on the SATs to go over it with you. One reason I think born agains are so dangerous is that they don't seem to have the intelligence to function well in a modern society.

Elder George,

I think Dianne makes my point about former Mormons wearing their former Mormonism as some kind of badge of authority. As to going to Hell with non-Mormons, we don't actually beieve non-Mormons will go to Hell. Decent people of all sorts will wind up in something very akin to traditional Christian Heaven--a bit boring, as Mark Twain pointed out, but otherwise pleasant.

It's actually the born agains who believe that non-born agains will burn in Hell forever. Perhaps she got us confused?

We do have a temporary place of punishment, but that's for people who have been objectively immoral--unrepentant murderers, liars, etc.--and in the end even they will partake of salvation. We don't believe in punishment for doctrinal differences. That, again, is a born again trait.

Our Hell is reserved for those who know the plan of salvation fully and choose to reject it, a rather small group of humans.

Nor do we believe that we will have endless numbers of wives in Heaven. Perhaps she has us confused with Moslems? As to sex in Heaven, it's a matter of debate, not doctrine. A recent issue of "Dialogue" contained an article arguing in favor of the proposition, but was followed up by a long letter pointing out the nothing in LDS doctrine requires physical sex to exist after this life. However it turns out, I'm sure some of us will be disappointed and others pleased.

The planet thing is just a piece of LDS urban myth. What we believe is that if we are worthy we will become joint heirs with Christ (now, where did that come from?) and be able to participate with God in his further creations. There has been lots of speculation, but nothing I'm aware of that we would call doctrine.

As to Dianne's scary movie, much of what upset her has been taken out, probably on the grounds that it smacked too much of 19th century melodrama and was putting people off. However, I've been through the temple many times both before and after the change and I've never met anyone who had Dianne's reaction. She can take pride in being unique.

I have always found the ceremony uplifting and am grateful for an opportunity to return to the temple often.

If you do watch her film, keep in mind that the real temple is brightly lit and you're not likely to see any of the zombie types that lurk in the background of her work. There's no eery music either. If that's what you're after, I'd recommend you rent "Shawn of the Dead."

And what's this business with born agains and underwear? Yes, the garment does remind us of our covenants. A generation ago, they were one piece. When everyone wore union suits, they looked like union suits. Nowadays they look like t-shirts and shorts. I suppose if we wore a hat like Jews and Moslems, or maybe special socks, born agains could get over it, but they just can't seem to get their minds off our underwear. Perverts. Play with your own shorts and stay out of ours.

Well, it's been fun but probably worthless. When you're dealing with people who can't even understand simple analogies, there isn't much hope of intelligent conversation. Much better to talk to Catholics. Rationality is part of their religion, in fact, I think they invented it. They also have enough self-confidence not to get all weird and paranoid when discussing beliefs different from their own.

pls elect a prestdent that is a christian am a mormornite i love dem but if u want america to remain elect a chritian i won't say who cause afterall america is a xtian country and God bless america

Stephanie, You are a great example why I hope a non-religious, secularist wins the presidency.

Elder George,

My main objection has been to people insulting my religion. I've been tough on some people, but I don't believe I've insulted anyone's religion. It was another Christian who wrote the book showing that evangelicals tend to be a little thick. ("The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" by Mark Noll) According to the review in "First Things," "the scandal of the evangelical mind," he laments, "is that there is not much of an evangelical mind." Nothing I've read on this blog leads me to disagree. In fact, Candy might be the poster girl for the book.

Countless metals, animals and plants? Of the metals, only steel remains problematic. Of the animals, I think only the horse, whatever kind of draught or riding animal that may refer to. I'm not aware of any controversial plants. Perhaps you could name a species or two. At any rate, you should read John L. Sorensen's book, "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon." It would answer most of your questions and has good footnotes to the appropriate scientific literature. I did a random check of a bunch of them once just to make sure Sorenson was playing fair. All his notes lead back to real sources.

As to the DNA, I've read what appeared in the press. It wasn't overwhelming and the only people I know of who got excited over it are a few people such as yourself with an ax to grind. Give me an article citation and I'll be happy to read whatever it is you find so convincing.

I'm happy your happy in your secularism, whatever good it does you. Since most of the early signers of the Constitution were Christians of one brand or another, it would be very difficult to argue that secularism saved our country. What saved us was tolarance, an unwillingness to magnify our religious differences. Maybe the born agains could learn the lesson. Given that the arts and sciences have flourished under every kind of religion at some point or other, you would have an equally hard time arguing that secularism is necessary for human development. Likewise, economic prosperity has occured in deeply religious countries. In so far that secularist tend to be socialists, I would have to say that secularism is more likely to harm prosperity than help it.

As to Mormonism being racist, that's just flapdoodle. I've seen the Church have success among more ethnic groups than you could probably name, including a multitude of African tribes. My own in-laws come in a variety of hues and I'm not aware that anyone has ever had a problem with it. And, if the Church is so sexist, why do more women than men joint it, a phenomenon that every LDS missionary faces?

As to the new mall in Salt Lake and the hotel in Oahu, those are what is known as investments and, if well run, will eventually return a profit to the investor. That's hardly taking money from the poor. As to the new Conference Hall, we're a big church. We need to gather somewhere. If Candy is successful in destroying the Church through the use of non-standard capitalization, perhaps we LDS can soon go back to renting small halls and sell the Conference Center to The First Church of the Lower Case, which I'm sure she's busy founding as I write.

As to starving poor, you know as well as I do that the Church spends huge amounts of money on welfare every year and also sends out thousands of retired couples to do humanitarian work. We've got little to be ashamed of there, although we could always do more. Studies show that religious people in general tend to be more generous in donations of money and time than secularists. What are you giving to the poor now that you've managed to pocket your tithing?

As to George Romney, eat him up big guy. He's not my candidate.

Make that Mitt. I'm showing my age, but I still done't like him.

"It's called an analogy."

Thank you for that. We would never have guessed. However, it is a fatally flawed analogy.

Therefore, it served no purpose.

And it's nice you seem not to have met racism in your time as a Mormon. I, however, when I was a Mormon, did see racism. More than once. And I saw church leaders ignore it.

Actually, I think that was the most upsetting part. That the leaders looked the other way and allowed a family to be chased away by nasty, vile racist members.

But, you see, the basis of what one could describe as Utah Mormonism was Brigham Young. Who was a racist to his very core.

Let me ask the Mormons posting here a question. Part of Gods plan required a Satan or nemesis. Satan fulfilled that role. Did he not therefore "filfill the measure of his creation," to quote from the temple ceremony? If he fulfilled the measure of his creation, does he not earn the right to the Mormon Celestial Kingdom? I would really like a thoughtful opinion on this.

Lacrima: You sanctimonious, arrogant, God-fearing man. Most of the Founding Fathers were Deists...look it up.

To get to you point regarding metals, animals, and plants...science is a b*tch. Here you go:

Cities:
Numerous books and papers, of which I have many, describe proposed Book of Mormon locations for cities and for the "narrow neck of land". All of them differ significantly. No city has yet been identified as being Nephite or Lamanite. This is significant in that Zarahemla was occupied for hundreds of years. Almost all geography mentioned in the Book of Mormon is in Mormon's abridgment of the plates. He would have known which locations would have been destroyed by the crucifixion. Therefore, the weak LDS apologist stance that the cities were destroyed is not valid. Remember we are talking about a time period from 2000 BC to 400 AD and millions of people and these cities they occupied have yet to be found.
A curious note is that when the Nephites landed in the Americas there were already millions of inhabitants in the land with large cities and infrastructure. Why are these peoples not mentioned?

Plant and Animal Life:
There are four major crops mentioned in the Nephite records. These are:
Barley (Mos 7:22, 9:9, Alma 11:7, 15)
Figs (3 Ne 14:16)
Grapes (2 Ne 15:2, 4, 3 Ne 14:16)
Wheat (Mos 9:9, 3 Ne 18:18)
Archeological findings for the time period of the Book of Mormon:

Barley NONE {an new world variety was found in Arizona and totally unrelated}
Figs NONE
Grapes NONE
Wheat NONE
This negative score on the plant-life test should not be treated too lightly. An abundance of evidence supporting the existence of these plants has been found in other parts of the world of antiquity. The existence of numerous non-Book-of-Mormon plants (maize, lima beans, tomatoes, squash, etc.) has been supported by abundant archeological findings. Quoting from Tom Ferguson: "I (Tom Ferguson) participated in excavating a trench a the edge of the Grijalva river in which we found a ceramic vessel is a stratum dating to about 200 BC. The vessel contained lima beans that had been burned anciently and discarded--pot and beans--as too badly burned to be edible. And yet they were still in their pristine and perfect form. The beans were carbon-14 dated helping to place the whole stratum on a true time scale. Art portrayals in ceramics, murals, and sculptured works--of ancient plant life--are fairly commonplace. Thousands of archeological holes in the area proposed have given us not a fragment of evidence of the presence of the plants mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The holes include the great one dug by Edwin Shook at Tehuacan, Puebla, Mexico. He excavated a cave -- going back to 5000 BC., finding most of the major plants of the area. But no wheat, barley, figs or grapes."

I would like to note that wheat is very durable. Wheat in near perfect condition has been frequently found in the Egyptian pyramids dating back thousands of years. There is absolutely no evidence from any source that wheat was ever used in the ancient Americas. This alone brings the Book of Mormon into serious doubt.

Animal Life:
This section is fun and Mormons are derided here for claiming horses and elephants were used by the ancients in America. This derision is for good reason, for they have never been found! There are more animals mentioned which reinforces the fictional nature of the Book of Mormon.
There are many animals mentioned in the Nephite records. These are:

Ass
Bull
Calf
Cattle
Cow
Butter
Milk
Flocks
Goat {the Nephites claimed to have found the domestic goat no less!}
Herds
Horse {the horse plays a major role in the Nephite and Lamanite societies}
Ox
Sheep {this was a major animal in the Book of Mormon}
Sow
Swine
Elephants
Archeological findings for the time period of the Book of Mormon:
Ass..... NONE
Bull.... NONE
Calf.... NONE
Cattle.. NONE
Cow..... NONE
Butter.. NONE
Milk.... NONE
Flocks.. NONE
Goat.... NONE
Herds... NONE
Horse... NONE
Ox...... NONE
Sheep... NONE
Sow..... NONE
Swine... NONE
Elephants (NONE contemporary with the Book of Mormon)
Again from Tom Ferguson: "Evidence of the foregoing animals has not appeared in any form -- ceramic representations, bones or skeletal remains, mural art, sculptured art or any other form. However... evidence has been found in several forms of the presence in the Book-of-Mormon times of other animals--deer, jaguars, dogs, turkeys etc. The zero score presents a problem that will not go away with the ignoring of it. Non-LDS scholars of first magnitude, some who want to be our friends, think we have real trouble here. That evidence of the ancient existence of these animals is not elusive is found in the fact that proof of their existence in the ancient old-world is abundant. The absence of such evidence...is distressing and significant, in my view."

Metals:
I will be briefer on the metals, but this is fascinating to me as I have both a BS and MS in metallurgical engineering.
Evidence supporting the existence of these metals, skills and products...at this time as follows:
Bellows....... NONE
Brass......... NONE
Breast Plates. NONE
Chains........ NONE
Copper........ NONE
Iron.......... NONE
Ore (mining).. NONE (this is very significant, no evidence of mining activities)
Plows......... NONE
Silver........ NONE
Swords........ NONE (none that are metal)
Steel......... NONE
Again from Tom Ferguson: "Metallurgy does not appear in the region until about the 9th century A.D. ...I regard this as a major weakness in the armor of our proponents and friends". ...Art does not portray the existence of metallurgical products or metallurgical activity. Again, the score is zero.

There are so many items archeologically, historically and using textual criticism to show the Book of Mormon to be fictional, that anyone willing to do a little study will reach the same conclusion.

There is a lot of Mormon mythology that states that the Book of Mormon has been "proven" by such and such a find or the uncovering of a city. When investigated ALL of these claims have been shown to be false. The myths are circulated in the Mormon culture by Sacrament meeting talks, Priesthood meeting discussions and in LDS social circles so much, that Mormons who do not investigate the source of the information, believe the stories to be true. They use these false stories to "strengthen their testimonies". Please see section on Problems with believing in Mormonism / Mormon Apologetics on this site for a letter from the Smithsonian which verifies these statements.
From: http://www.exmormon.org/whyileft.htm

Actually Matt, it is a very good analogy. I was a very successful lit major. We do that kind of thing well. And it makes my point quite well. Hostile people are not a reliable source of information on the people they hate.

I didn't say that no Mormons are racist. I'm sure some are. But the Church itself is not racist or we would not be having such success among such a wide variety of ethnic groups, including Africans.

I'm not a Utahn myself, but I have lived in the state while going to BYU and now have kids going to BYU, so I still visit. I find Utahns pleasant, although a bit odd. AS to your horror story, I told one about a black family in Ogden who fell in love with the Church because of the kind treatment they received from members there. I guess our two anecdotes cancel each other out.

Most people in the 19th century were racist by modern standards. They thought differently about race than we do. I've read Arrington's biography of Young, plus some articles and a number of histories about early Utah. I haven't seen anything that would make him worse than normal for the time. In his actions, he went out of his way to honor the black members who came across the plains, which suggest he knew how to overcome his prejudices or at least keep them from controlling his actions. As to Indians, you might pick up the book on the Mormon--Indian wars that came out a few years ago. By the standards of the time, Young's actions were quite enlightened, certainly better than what the Feds did to them. Too bad members didn't pay more attention to his advice.

I am glad this election has given Christians an opportunity to teach the world about the Mormon Cult. Yeah Mitt ! Thank you !

Many Americans are Mormon. Many Mormons are not Americans. "Ex-Mormons" are bitter. Anti-Mormons are wrong. Inactive Mormons are good people. Therefore, everyone on here who thinks they know everything doesn't really know anything.

If you have any questions about the Mormon Faith do not hesitate to email and ask your questions.

depquarm@yahoo.com

Elder George,

I don't have time to go through all your points one by one. It's worth pointing out that a calf is not a type of animal, but rather an animal of a certain age. Just as a sow can be a bear or pig, calves can also be a variety of animals. Butter, milk, bulls, flocks and herds are also not types of animals (you sure you're not an evangelical?).

Bellows, ore, swords. chains, breast plates, ploughs etc, are also not metals. Ploughs in medieval Europe were often entirely of wood and drawn by human labor. Aztecs made wonderful swords of obsidian and The Book of Mormon describes breast plates of cloth.

Native grapes certainly exist in the Americas. You can buy them from any good plant catalogue. Barley has been found. It's been a long time since I've read Sorenson's book, but he'll answer far more of your questions than Ferguson can. Ferguson was OK for his time, but he was a lawyer, not an archeologist. Sorenson is a rigorously trained scholar and footnotes all his claims, so you can at least question his sources or his use of them.

Even Sorenson admits that not all questions have been answered, but most of what you bring up is old hat and long resolved. Using Ferguson does you no good and you have to admit that your lists are a bit naive, to be kind, although I will admit that all four of your plants are plants. Read something reliable and then try again. There are still real problems, but your outdated lists have so much noise you can't make the points you want to make.

There was a period when I was a young teenager when people were trying to use archeology to bolster their testimonies, but I think that trend went out of style years ago.

Elder George,

I missed your first comment. In fact, if you go to this site, you'll see a list of all the founding fathers and their religious affiliatins. All of them had some connection to a Christian religion, although some of them certainly tended more to deism than standard Christianity. The deism of the time by the way was not equivalent to modern secularism. Even Jefferson spent a great deal of time with his Bible. He actually created his own version, kind of like a Christian feminist whose book on Genesis I once read. The list is here: http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Here is a list of quotes from most of the founding fathers, including Jefferson, that suggests their basic Christian orientation: http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

If you go to this site and scroll down to religion, you'll see that this author differs from the first one cited above, but still shows that the majority of the founding fathers were fully Christian, although not interested in establishing a religious federal government. As I recall, however, the majority of states at the time had state religions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States

Elder George,

I missed your first comment. In fact, if you go to this site, you'll see a list of all the founding fathers and their religious affiliatins. All of them had some connection to a Christian religion, although some of them certainly tended more to deism than standard Christianity. The deism of the time by the way was not equivalent to modern secularism. Even Jefferson spent a great deal of time with his Bible. He actually created his own version, kind of like a Christian feminist whose book on Genesis I once read. The list is here: http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Here is a list of quotes from most of the founding fathers, including Jefferson, that suggests their basic Christian orientation: http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

If you go to this site and scroll down to religion, you'll see that this author differs from the first one cited above, but still shows that the majority of the founding fathers were fully Christian, although not interested in establishing a religious federal government. As I recall, however, the majority of states at the time had state religions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States

Jim Huston,

It's a clever question, but I think Christ himself provides the answer in Matthew 18:7: ...it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom offence cometh.

Sorry for the double posts. The internet at my hotel has an odd interface.

Lacrima, you're a trainwreck.

The following was taken from Mormon resources only and quotes Mormon Prophets and Apostles as they Preached Mormon Doctrine. It can be found on www.realmormonhistory.com

Heber C. Kimball, a member of the First Presidency, said that Exmormons will have their bowels kicked out:

"Judas lost that saving principle, and they took him and killed him. Itis said in the Bible that his bowels gushed out; but they actually KICKEDHIM until his bowels came out. "'I will suffer my bowels to be taken out before I will forfeit the covenant I have made with Him and my brethren.' Do you understand me? Judas was like salt that had lost its saving principles--good for nothing butto be cast out and trodden under foot of men.... It is so with you, ye Eldersof Israel, when you forfeit your covenants.... I know the day is right at handwhen men will forfeit their Priesthood and turn against us and against thecovenants they have made, and they will be DESTROYED as Judas was. (December 13,1857 in the Salt Lake Tabernacle, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, pages 125-126)

Blood must be spilled or sins will stick to a man:

"There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receiveforgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had theireyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing toHAVE THEIR BLOOD SPILT upon the ground, that the smoke thereofmight ascend to heaven as an OFFERING FOR THEIR SINS; and thesmoking incense would ATONE for their sins, whereas, if such is not thecase, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world. (Sermon by Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses,Vol. 4, pages 53-54; also published in the Deseret News, 1856, page 235)

Killing people is for their own good:

"I know, when you hear my brethren telling about CUTTINGPEOPLE OFF FROM THE EARTH, that you consider it is strong doctrine,but it is to SAVE them, not to destroy them.... (Sermon by Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses,Vol. 4, pages 53-54; also published in the Deseret News, 1856, page 235)

If some people knew what was good for them, they would beg the Mormons to kill them:

"And furthermore, I know that there are transgressors, who, if theyknew themselves, and the ONLY CONDITION upon which they canobtain forgiveness, WOULD BEG OF THEIR BRETHREN TO SHEDTHEIR BLOOD, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as anOFFERING to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that thelaw might have its course. (Sermon by Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses,Vol. 4, pages 53-54; also published in the Deseret News, 1856, page 235)

Brigham had people coming to him asking to be killed:

I will say further; I HAVE HAD MEN COMETO ME AND OFFER THEIR LIVES TO ATONE FOR THEIR SINS. (Sermon by Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses,Vol. 4, pages 53-54; also published in the Deseret News, 1856, page 235)

Killing animals works sometimes, but other times a man must be killed:

"It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins throughthe fall and those committed by men, yet MEN CAN COMMIT SINSWHICH IT CAN NEVER REMIT. As it was in ancient days, so it is in ourday; and though the principles are taught publicly from this stand, still thepeople do not understand them; yet the law is precisely the same. Thereare sins that can be ATONED for by an offering upon an altar, as inancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, of a calf, or ofturtle doves, cannot remit, but THEY MUST BE ATONED FOR BY THEBLOOD OF THE MAN.(Sermon by Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses,Vol. 4, pages 53-54; also published in the Deseret News, 1856, page 235)

From the Salt Lake Tabernacle, it is proposed to select executioners and a place to kill people:

"I say, that there are men and women that I wouldadvise to go to the President immediately, and ask him to appoint acommittee to attend to their case; and then let a place be selected, ANDLET THAT COMMITTEE SHED THEIR BLOOD."We have those amongst us that are full of all manner ofabominations, those WHO NEED TO HAVE THEIR BLOOD SHED, forwater will not do, their sins are of too deep a dye."You may think that I am not teaching you Bible doctrine, but whatsays the apostle Paul? I would ask how many COVENANT BREAKERSthere are in this city and in this kingdom. I believe that there are a greatmany; and if they are COVENANT BREAKERS we need a placedesignated, WHERE WE CAN SHED THEIR BLOOD." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 49-50)

Joseph Smith prefers cutting heads off over hanging people:

"In debate, George A. Smith said imprisonment was better than hanging. "I replied, I was opposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, I WILL SHOOT HIM, OR CUT OFF HIS HEAD, SPILL HIS BLOOD on the ground, and let the smoke thereof ascend up to God; and if ever I have the privilege of making a law on that subject, I will have it so." (History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, Vol. 5, p. 296

Joseph Fielding Smith explains how blood atonement was incorporated into Utah State law:

"...the founders of Utah incorporated in the laws of the Territory provisions for the capital punishment of those who wilfully
shed the blood of their fellow men. This law, which is now the law of the State, granted unto the condemned murderer the privilege of choosing for himself whether he die by hanging, or whether he BE SHOT, AND THUS HAVE HIS BLOOD SHED IN HARMONY WITH THE LAW OF GOD; AND THUS ATONE, so far as it is in his power to atone, for the death of his victim. Almost without exception the condemned party chooses the latter death." (Doctrines of Salvation, by Joseph Fielding Smith, Vol. 1, p. 136)

Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, on the proper way to kill people:

"As a mode of capital punishment, hanging or execution on a gallows does not comply with the law of blood atonement, for the blood is not shed." (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce R. McConkie, 1958 ed., p. 314)

Bruce R. McConkie laments that the government does not kill cheaters

"Modern governments DO NOT TAKE THE LIFE OF THE ADULTERER, and some of them have done away with the supreme penalty where murder is involved-all of which is further evidence of the direful apostacy that prevails among the peoples who call themselves Christians." (Mormon Doctrine, 1958 ed., p. 104)

Brigham Young teaches when one should stab their brother and their wife:

"Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and PUT A JAVELIN THROUGH BOTH OF THEM, YOU WOULD BE JUSTIFIED, AND THEY WOULD ATONE FOR THEIR SINS, AND BE RECEIVED INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would DO IT WITH CLEAN HANDS... "There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, YOUR OWN BLOOD MUST ATONE FOR IT;..." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 247)

Women's closest relative must kill her seducer:

"The principle, the only one that beats and throbs through the heart of the entire inhabitants of this Territory, is simply this: The man who seduces his neighbors wife MUST DIE, and her nearest relative MUST KILL HIM!" (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 97)

Shooting people is as important as baptizing them:

If you will cause all those whom you know to be THIEVES, to be placed in a line before the mouth of one of our largest CANNON, well loaded with chain shot, I WILL PROVE BY MY WORKS WHETHER I CAN METE OUT JUSTICE to such persons, or not. I WOULD CONSIDER IT JUST AS MUCH MY DUTY TO DO THAT, AS TO BAPTIZE A MAN for the remission of his sins. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, pp. 108-109)

Non-believers must die:

"The time is coming when justice will be laid to the line and righteousness to the plummet; when we shall ask, 'Are you for God?' and if you are not heartily on the Lord's side, YOU WILL BE HEWN DOWN." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, page 226)

Counterfeiters must die:

"We investigated several orders purporting to be drawn byJ. Allen, Lieut. Col., signed by James Pollick; which I requested should beburned. I swore by the Eternal Gods that if men in our midst would notstop this cursed work of stealing and counterfeiting THEIR THROATS SHOULD BE CUT." ("Manuscript History of Brigham Young," Feb. 24,1847, typed copy)

Interracial couples must die:

"Shall I tell you the LAW OF GOD in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the PENALTY, under the LAW OF GOD IS DEATH ON THE SPOT. This will ALWAYS BE SO." (Journal of Discourses, v. 10, p. 110)

Any man having children with a black woman must be beheaded, and his children must be killed:

"And if any man mingle his seed with the seed of Cane [sic] the ownly [sic] way he could get rid of it or have salvation would be to come forward and have his head cut off & spill his Blood upon the ground it would also take the life of his children..." (Wilford Woodruff's Journal, recording a speech by Brigham Young, January 16, 1852, typed copy; original located in LDS Church Archives).

Brigham Young: Apostates must leave Salt Lake City, or they must die:

"I say, rather than that APOSTATES should flourish here, I WILL UNSHEATH MY BOWIE KNIFE, and CONQUER OR DIE. (Great commotion in the congregation, and a simultaneous burst of feeling, assenting to the declaration.) Now, you nasty apostates, clear out, or judgment will be put to the line, and righteousness to the plummet. (Voices, generally, 'go it, go it.') If you say it is right, raise your hands. (All hands up.) Let us call upon the Lord to assist us in this, and every good work." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 83)

Do you love your brothers and sisters enough to kill them?

"All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be GLAD to have HIS BLOOD SHED. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you LOVE your brothers or sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the SHEDDING OF THEIR BLOOD? WILL YOU LOVE THAT MAN OR WOMAN WELL ENOUGH TO SHED THEIR BLOOD?... "I COULD REFER YOU TO PLENTY OF INSTANCES WHERE MEN HAVE BEEN RIGHTEOUSLY SLAIN, IN ORDER TO ATONE FOR THEIR SINS. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance (in the last resurrection there will be) if their lives HAD BEEN TAKEN AND THEIR BLOOD SPILLED on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil... I have known a great many men who LEFT THIS CHURCH for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their BLOOD HAD BEEN SPILLED, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER FOR THEM, the wickedness and IGNORANCE of the nations forbids this principle's being in FULL FORCE, but THE TIME WILL COME WHEN THE LAW OF GOD WILL BE IN FULL FORCE. (Sermon by Brigham Young, delivered in the Mormon Tabernacle, Feb. 8, 1857, printed in the Deseret News, Feb. 18, 1857; also reprinted in the Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pp. 219-220)

The way to love your neighbors is to kill them:

"THIS IS LOVING OUR NEIGHBOR AS OURSELVES; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is NECESSARY TO SPILL HIS BLOOD on the earth in order that he may be saved, SPILL IT. Any of you who understand the principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin REQUIRING THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood SHOULD BE SPILLED, that you might gain that salvation you desire. THAT IS THE WAY TO LOVE MANKIND." (Sermon by Brigham Young, delivered in the Mormon Tabernacle, Feb. 8, 1857, printed in the Deseret News, Feb. 18, 1857; also reprinted in the Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pp. 219-220)

Mormon prophet nearly stabs a man with his pocket knife , thinking he might say something disagreeable:

"About 4:30 p.m. this meeting adjourned and was followed by a meeting of Presidents Woodruff, Cannon and SMITH and Bros. Lyman and Grant....Bro. JOSEPH F. SMITH was traveling some years ago near Carthage when he met a man who said he had just arrived five minutes too late to see the Smiths killed. Instantly a dark cloud seemed to overshadow Bro. Smith and he asked how this man looked upon the deed. Bro. S. was oppressed by a most horrible feeling as he waited for a reply. After a brief pause the man answered, 'Just as I have always looked upon it--that it was a d--d cold-blooded murder.' The cloud immediately lifted from Bro. Smith and he found that he had his OPEN POCKET KNIFE GRASPED IN HIS HAND in his pocket, and he believes that had this man given his approval to that murder of the prophets HE WOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY STRUCK HIM TO THE HEART." (Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, Dec. 6, 1889, pages 205-206 )

BYU history professor refers to a specific case of blood atonement:

"To whatever extent the preaching on BLOOD ATONEMENT may have influenced action, it would have been in relation to Mormon disciplinary action among its own members. In point would be a verbally reported case of a Mr. Johnson in Cedar City who was found guilty of adultery with his step-daughter by a BISHOP'S COURT and SENTENCED TO DEATH FOR ATONEMENT OF HIS SIN. According to the report of reputable EYEWITNESSES, judgment was executed with consent of the offender who went to his UNCONSECRATED GRAVE IN FULL CONFIDENCE OF SALVATION THROUGH THE SHEDDING OF HIS BLOOD. Such a case, however primitive, is understandable within the meaning of the doctrine and the emotional extremes of the Reformation." (Utah Historical Quarterly, January 1958, p.62, footnote 39)

Any doubts that this is the "Great American Cult?"

Lacrima, I have read your posts and you seem to be in a defensive, shut-down mode. I do not see you have answered anyone on any question or point. Answering what you "wished they had asked" is not acceptable in a public forum. Have you read what Jefferson wrote to his nephew about the Bible? In his opinion is was a fantasy for people with weak minds. You did not answer my question and and while claiming to answer George Carlin's question you disclaimed the majority of issues and said that items like bellows and ore were not metals. You are right. They are items required for refining metals and leave a very broad footprint when they are used. Swords and brestplates are generally metal and in the Book of Mormon are listed as being metal. Refining again leaves a very broad footprint. You have also elected to not comment on the Ass, Cattle, Cow, Goat, Horse, Ox, Sheep, Sow and swine which are specific animals. There is also wheat, European Barly(not the North American variety which is not related), oats and other grains. Please try to give direct answers rather than the blather that generally comes from Mormon apologists.

Adam is our God. Eve was one of his plural wives. We are all their spirit children, born in heaven, and given mortal tabernacles when we came to earth. Blacks wear the mark of Cain. Mormons swear the blood oath to obey the church. When the command is given to shed blood, as it was at Mountain Meadows, they will obey. My family pushed handcarts from Westport to Salt Lake City. My great-grandfather had three wives. The Mormon missionaries hound me like a rabbit- they are fanatics, and DNA has proven that their fantasies about the Native Americans being the Lamanites are not true. The Smithsonian sends out a form letter refuting Mormon claims that cities in MesoAmerica have been discovered using the Book of Mormon- no archaeological find has ever verified a single Mormon claim. They are nuts, and people should be very afraid of them.

Jim Huston wrote:"Part of Gods plan required a Satan or nemesis. Satan fulfilled that role. Did he not therefore "filfill the measure of his creation," to quote from the temple ceremony? If he fulfilled the measure of his creation, does he not earn the right to the Mormon Celestial Kingdom? I would really like a thoughtful opinion on this."

My answer, "fulfilling a role" does not equal "fulfilling the measure of creation". God created mortal man and his spirit. His plan as you reference was to see if his creations(mortal man and the mortal man's spirit) would follow his commandments. That is all I will offer.

After that your question is a loaded question I am sure. As you have already shown by you response to Lacrima you do not truly look for a thoughtful response on your question. Rather you have probably engaged members of the Mormon faith before and only try to ensnare them when they give a response. How do I come to that conclusion? By your admittance to Lacrima that you have heard the "blather that generally comes from Mormon apologists". Your tactic is actually quite common among certain groups--Ask what seems like a very serious open minded question related to a faith then upon receiving an answer to said question provide an already preconceived retort or claim that contradicts the answer given--

Mitt Romney is trying to present the Mormon religion as just another Christian denomination. Our experience may raise questions about how well some Mormon "family values" align with those of other faiths. When our only daughter was married in a Mormon temple, we were not allowed to attend the wedding because we are not Mormons. Our feelings and values were not respected. We were told we could wait outside the building. The ceremony is so secret that the bride is not permitted to know in advance what it will be like or to talk about it afterward. When we were raising her, we never imagined that we would be excluded from her wedding. Romney's candidacy has given voters a good reason to explore his unusual and unique beliefs.

We eventually discovered that the temple ritual was mostly copied from the Freemasons to hide Joseph Smith's polygamy. There is information online at several sites maintained by ex- Mormons, as well as in books and historical records. Helpful sites for us were Mormon Curtain, under the topic, "Mormon Temple Ceremonies" at (link) and Recovery from Mormonism at (link) which has many stories similar to ours. Their main pages have links to numerous other controversial Mormon ideas.

The Book of Mormon is a fantasy prehistory of the Americas. It says that Native Americans are descendants of a lost tribe of Israel and Christ appeared here to speak to them. Mormons are not allowed to read anything critical of their church or examine the actual history of the founder, a convicted con man who said he was forced by an angel to "marry" dozens of woman. Some were already married to other men and at least one was only fourteen years old.

The Mormon book of Abraham was proven to be a ripoff of the egyptian book of the dead. Joseph Smith claimed to have interpreted the Book of Abraham from papyri and mummies bought in 1835. The papyri contained Egyptian hieroglyphics which Joseph Smith claimed contained the Book of Abraham written by Abraham himself.

Thomas Ferguson, a Mormon archaeologist, concluded in a private letter to a friend:

"Since 4 scholars, who have established that they can read Egyptian, say that the manuscripts deal with neither Abraham nor Joseph-- and since the 4 reputable men tell us exactly what the manuscripts do say -- I must conclude that Joseph Smith had not the remotest skill in things Egyptian-hieroglyphics. To my surprise, one of the highest of officials in the Mormon Church agreed with that conclusion when I made that very statement to him on Dec. 4, 1970--privately in one-to-one [c]onversation...

It's such a rediculously transparent fraud, I'd eat Mitt Romney's magic underwear if the public couldn't see through him and his cult and elected him.

As I suggested in my original post, this little free-for-all offers outsiders an insightful overview of what Utahns term "The Great Divide" which separates MormonThink from much of the rest of the human race. I was fairly certain "Lacrima" would charge headlong at the red flags I waved, and I wasn't disappointed. Before I erect some "factual gravestones" over those holes he's just dug, I'll note--again for the outsiders--that his arguments are entirely representative of the current state of Mormon apologetics, which, to borrow Orwell's phrase, amount to "defense of the indefensible." Those curious about Mormonism who read his words have indeed been offered the opportunity to "learn about Mormonism from a Mormon."

Unfortunately, it's difficult to know where to begin since I was subjected to exactly the kind of personal attacks and dishonest diatribes I predicted . . . I suppose the subject of Mormon Temple Oaths is as reasonable a place as any; I noted the blood oaths to "avenge the blood of the prophets" were doubtless involved in the Mountain Meadows Massacre, which was partly an act of revenge for the murder of Mitt Romney's great-great-grandfather (in Arkansas by the man whose wife Apostle Parley P. Pratt had appropriated as his own).

Our "Lacrima" doesn't waste any time insisting that if I didn't know anything about MMM, it was my fault, since Juanita Brooks wrote about the subject in 1950, and that ought to be all I need to know . . .

Well, there was a copy of that book in my JackMormon grandfather's library, but I didn't get around to reading it until after he passed away; I'm not sure when I first heard about Mountain Meadows, but it wasn't until I was in grad school finishing up a teaching certificate that I broached the subject with an academic. An Ed Psych professor of mine described how, as a young teacher, she'd permitted a report on the subject, and after tearful young Mormons came into her class insisting it had never happened, she wound up nearly losing her job . . .

And I have in my possession a copy of "The Utah Story," the textbook used in Utah History from approximately 1960 through 1972, and there's no mention of the event (or how Parley P. Pratt died) even though men like John D. Lee and Jacob Hamblin are mentioned and celebrated as venerated pioneers.

BTW, the author of "The Utah Story" was Milton R. Hunter, a General Authority in the LDS Church at the time . . .

I find it kind of ironic that "Lacrima" is emulating Hunter's example, and makes no mention of my friend Will Bagley's prize winning volume "Blood of the Prophets" about the killings (where 120 or so individuals, eighty of whom were women and children, were lured out under a flag of truce and executed in cold blood. The tie-in with the Parley P. Pratt murder is that most of the wagon train members were from Arkansas).

And as for that "apology" the LDS church offered, here's a link to the story from the church's own mouthpiece, "The Deseret News."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695209359,00.html

"Elder Henry B. Eyring of the Quorum of the Twelve read the church's statement . . . [which] places blame for the Sept. 11, 1857, massacre on the local church leaders at the time and church members who followed their orders to murder some 120 unarmed men, women and children.

'We express profound regret for the massacre carried out in this valley 150 years ago today, and for the undue and untold suffering experienced by the victims then and by their relatives to the present time,'

Funny, when I was growing up, I was alway taught an apology ought to carry the words "I'm sorry" or "apologize," and I don't see either in this article although the journalist reporting includes it as a fantasy . . . There's also a separate statement to the Paiute Indians, which I found particularly galling, given that I've seen volumes written--under the aegis of church-owned Brigham Young University--that blamed the original massacre on the Indians, a tactic first adopted by Brigham Young (who was given information on all the participants by both John D. Lee and others within months of the event).

Finally, the church-financed volume that Lacrima claims exonerates top LDS leaders hasn't been printed yet, despite a five year wait and expenditures in the millions of dollars.

Moving on, Lacrima's insult implying that I must be blind because I "say there is no evidence of advanced civilizations or great battles" is another bit of nonsense. Any battles fought or citites built were by Native Americans (most of them well after the alleged timeframe of the mythical Nephites), not Hebrew descendants (the DNA that proves this is mitochondrial DNA, passed essentially unchanged from mother to child, and we know what Semitic mtDNA looks like, and the sequences differ substantially from Amerind mtDNA.

And the suggestion to review the works of Mormon apologist John L. Sorenson is a genuine screamer. Sorensen, noting the absence of horses in pre-Columbian America (Joseph Smith mentions horses in the BOM, as noted above), suggested the Nephite warriors rode tapirs or possibly deer into battle . . .

As for that bit of testimony-bearing denying LDS racism (well except when the rest of the country was also being racist, a fabrication in and of itself since there were many who believed in racial equality long before the Civil Rights movement), I wonder how that black sargent would've reacted had he known his son wouldn't have been able to go on a mission a scant 30 years ago since he wouldn't have been permitted to receive his Temple endowments . . .

BTW, a sister of mine married a black some time after the Kimball Revelation, and the entire Mormon half of my family boycotted the wedding . . .

Does it occur to anyone (or indeed trouble anyone) that in all likelihood in another 25 years we will be having this same discussion about scientology. You wait long enough and get enough people espousing a set of beliefs and pretty soon you become socially acceptable and your set of beliefs become immune to critique in polite society. It is the remarkable transformation of a cult into a religion.

Romney's beliefs in Mormon doctrine are his biggest political weakness. It's unfortunate that simply believing in the piousness of a 19th century polygamist and pedophile, that one who lives a righteous life will become a god, and that we each can count on an imaginary friend could be problems for a person wanting to be President. Imagine.....

Indeed, Joseph Smith was an amoral con man, polygamist and pedophile. Brigham Young bears personal responsibility for the above mentioned mass murder. Mormonism is a cult. And I was appalled that anyone would try to pedal this piece of tripe:

"if you want to know about mormonism, ask a mormon"

Yeah, they will repeat all the propaganda and lies they have been told to worship their whole life, and will not criticize the scam that is mormonism. It is the phoniest of all religions, all of which are false.

Ex-Necrodunker,

Your long quote isn't nearly as sginificant as you think. The idea underlying all of them is found in 1Cor5:5 (To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus). This is the same scripture that Catholics and Protestants used to justify burning witches, heretics and each other. The idea was that by killing an apostate Christian, you were doing him a favor.

Mormons, as part of our moving away from our apostate Christian heritage, have dumped that concept. Oddly enough, I once heard this scripture favorably discussed on a Christian (i.e., Protestant) radio show, suggesting that some Protestant groups still believe in it.

Huston,

Thanks for showing your true colors. Elder George's statement was that all the founding fathers were deists. The historical record shows that is a false statement. Jefferson's letter to his son is entirely irrelevant to the point.

I and most LDS will freely concede that The Book of Mormon is not proven. To use Ferguson, an amateur at best, to make that point, however, just shows how far behind the curve you antis are. Sorenson may not have all the answers, but he is a trained professional and that's where the discussion is these days.

I repeat a sow is not a type of animal. Both female pigs and bears are referred to as sows, possibly other animals as well. I appreciate your high botanical standards, but I doubt The Book of Mormon will rise or fall over the question of Nephi's being able to distinguish among breeds of barley.

As to the rest of the questions, read Sorenson's book yourself. I could read it and quote it to you, but I'm not your research assistant. You somehow think that my obligation is to satisfy you, but in fact I only need to satisfy myself and I am personally satisfied that The Book of Mormon still merits my faith.

You mistake the nature of Mormon apologetics. Part of it is in reaction to legitimate questions by outsiders and is designed, not to prove the book, but to show that there is some rational basis for believing it. In that sense it has succeded.

The other part is that a lot of us are interested in the BoM as a book, in the same way one might be interested in any other historical document. We start, however from the premise that the book is true, even though a, b and c remain problems. You start from the premise that because a, b, and c are problems the book must be false. Those are not easily reconcilable attitudes and I'm not sure where further argument will take us.

I'm still waiting for a citation to your definitive DNA evidence. Your position on this is a bit weak. You state on the one hand that the site of Nephite civiliztion is unknown and on the other that you have genetic proof they weren't there. I've referred you to a site run by a professional geneticist (he has never discussed this issue and I doubt he is Mormon) who posts a lot of rather interesting genetics studies. Read them and you'll see that life is not as simple as you think.

Lacrima:
I'm not a Mormon, but after reading many of the posts here and your responses to them, I would like to point out that you engage in a red herring and ad hominem-type of debate strategy. Someone familiar with logical fallacies can see what you are doing. You have attacked the messengers, instead of focusing on the message.

With so many countless scientific and literary works providing solid evidence that the Book of Mormon is fraudulent, it seems incredulous to imagine any "rational basis for believing it".

The Mormon Church is a Cult, plain and simple.

>>the Mormon former Massachusetts governor's biggest conflict: his "blood oath" to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

If what Mr. Moody says is correct, the Mormon mafia should take *former-Mormon* Moody out any day now.

>>You have attacked the messengers, instead of focusing on the message.

How about the messenger's logic? In essence, he's claiming that Romney will be killed by the church if he goes against it, yet he himself is a former Mormon who is openly fighting against the church.

So, there are hundreds of thousands of former Mormons out there. Why haven't we heard about the mass killings of all these lapsed members?

I cannot support a candidate that believes the story of Joseph Smith: finding gold plates inscribed with Egyptian hieroglyphics buried in NY, then also finding a pair of magical eyeglasses that he used to translate the cryptic writing into English. Then, both disappeared with no evidence of their 1820's existence.

An excellent book about Mormon's real history: One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church

http://www.equip.org/site/apps/ka/ec/product.asp?c=muI1LaMNJrE&b=2537845&ProductID=430497

Why is this rag still up? I see a defamation lawsuit against the Post here. Post a blog here that starts out with a skin head rag on black intellegence, or whether the jews were responsible for the holocoust and see what happens. Oh, sure there is no agenda here - yeah, right(sic). Again, the Post itself was diminished by this blog. Under the guise of information sharing, the Post no longer stands against inequality, hatred, bigotry, or for religous freedom or the fundemental rights of privacy. Akers and her Yellow journalism belong to other internet sites/blogs - not here. She owes a lot of people an apology.

All I know is that I don't want a President
that is "owned" by a prophet.

LDS Cabbie,

You're a bit facile with your personal history. In one letter you claim that all the info was hidden and you had to ferret it out as an adult, and now you admit that the most significant volume written on the subject to date was easily available to you, but you just didn't bother to read it. You ought to keep your stories straight.

You claim that the "blood oath" was instrumental in precipitating the MMM. That may be true, but you provide no evidence for it. Even if it is true, I'm not sure that it makes an already horrible event much worse.

You also state that I claim the new book on the MMM exonorates the Church. I made no such claim, as I haven't read it yet. What I said is the Brook's book exonorates high Church leaders and that I have read that the new volume comes to the same conclusion. Given the trouble Brigham Young was having at the time with both the Feds and the Indians, it would have hardly have made sense for him to stir up more trouble by ordering the slaughter of a wagon train full of Arkansans.

Since the evidence to this point shows that the Church as a whole was not responsible for the MMM, I would say that it's recent actions are adequate.

As to the so called racist Church, I'm not sure the social pathologies of your family prove anything. As I've mentioned before, members of my own family have married members of other ethnic groups, not only without protest from anyone, but with a great deal of familial joy. Children of those marriages have since gone on to interracial marriages of their own, including one who recently married the blondest of blond Utahns. Both families were happy with the marriage.

I lived in Africa for many years. During that time I received callings from black leaders and my sons were interviewed for priesthood advancement by black leaders. I was never given the sense that we were special because we were white. I've seen apostles visiting Africans and showing the same love and kindness I've seen them show to white members in Eastern Europe when we lived there. I have in fact seen the Church grow in many different countries and have never seen it or its leaders act in a racist manner. So, what am I to believe--you or my lying eyes?

This, by the way, is not "testimony bearing" as you put it. I've been there and have seen for myself, whereas life seems to have confined you to a cab in downtown Salt Lake City. If by "testimony bearing" you mean making emotional statements made without adequate evidence, the fault would seem to lie with you.

Vickie,

I agree with you. We don't want a president who is under control of a prophet. If anybody presented any evidence that Romney or any other LDS politician were under the control of the prophet, that would, indeed, be reason to oppose him. So far, no one has presented any evidence that such is the case.

Do you have any such evidence? If so, why don't you kindly put it up for discussion, instead of just popping off with platitudes?

The poster who id'd himself as "Angry American" is obviously a Mormon.

AA - This is the United States where we still have free speech. Just because a number of blog posters provided information on Mormon dogma, scriptures, quotes from Presidents of the Church, scientific facts on the Book of Mormon...doesn't mean the Washington Post promotes "inequality, hatred, bigotry, or for religous freedom or the fundemental rights of privacy".

Perhaps you should speak with your ecclesiastical leaders about those, since there is well-documented evidence that shows they act in all of those things.

Mary Ann:
These baseless attacks by Mormons is what happens when you try to report objective journalism on anything they find contradictory.

I have never found a religious sect so defensive with such an illogical and irrational persecution complex.

It's so true that people who leave the church cannot leave it alone. My father in law talks about it constantly when we go to visit him. It's like he needs validation from us that what he did (leaving the church) was correct. Moody sounds like he has some serious issues still and is looking outwardly to find inner validation for the choices he's making.

The LDS Church and its robotic members hate gay people. Guess what? The feeling is totally mutual.

Lacrima,
Perhaps you should offer evidence to support the Mormon view. You call for evidence from us who oppose your view, but only offer quips and insults to those, like Vickie, who are only guilty of believing somehting other than Mormon bovine excrement.

Emily Ekins:
You said "It's so true that people who leave the church cannot leave it alone."

Let me give you a few reasons why it's hard. People who leave the church are highly varied and do so for a variety of reasons.

Many spend years on LDS Missions and/or thousands of hours as contributing members of the LDS Church. Some spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in tithing and some spend hours and hours in the LDS Temple doing temple work for others.

Then when they determine the church is not what it seems and decide to leave, it is a painful experience because many "so called" friends turn against them. Spouses divorce because of the rift it causes them that their non-believing spouse doesn't go to church anymore. I have non-believing friends who pay 10% of their income in tithing to the Mormon church, because they love their spouses and are afraid they will leave them if they stop paying tithing and going to church. I have heard countless stories of children turning on a parent who decides to leave...and these parents are people who devoted their lives to the LDS Church. Instead of getting support from their loved ones and church friends for sticking up for their belief that the church is not what it seems and to hold their head high with their integrity in tact, those people turn on them like passive-aggressive wolves. It's truly sad.

That is why many have a hard time "leaving the church alone" (which incidentally is very much a Mormon cliche). When you visit your father-in-law and he "talks about it constantly", do you think he might feel alienated when all of his family members go to church, talk about church, pay money to a church he might find reprehensible...and they view him as somebody who will not be a part of their "eternal family". I feel bad for him Emily.

Let these few departees take their brief bows in the secular spotlight; someday they will bow deeply before the throne of the Almighty, confessing that Jesus is the Christ and that this is his work.

"Bashing people for their religious views" equals "No Class".

LDS doctrine is to treat ALL people as brothers and sisters.
Why is everyone so worried?
I'm not voting for Mitt because Ron Paul supports my views; however, I think Mitt Romney should be proud of his Christian faith. True Christians are no threat to other faiths.

Peter,

I have indeed attacked a number of the messengers on this site, because, to be frank, most of them strike me as a bit gormless. You, for example, need to look the word "credulous" up in the dictionary. If you can't even use you own native language with facility, why should anyone take your ideas seriously?

LDS Cabbie can't even get the facts of his own life, yet he wants me to take at face value all his "facts" about the Mountain Meadow Massacre and LDS racism.

Elder George can't distinguish in his lists between adjectives and nouns, between animals and words that describe the gender or age of animals, and then he cites as evidence an amateur acheologist. Who can take a guy like that seriously?

I'm sitting in a hotel room without any library nearby, but, if you go back and read my replies, I have tried at least to cite titles of books, references to web sites, etc. Nothing I've written meets professional standards, but I've tried.

There is a whole intellectual world out there that deals with Mormonism seriously, if not always positively. Little of that world seems to be familiar to the people on this site, including the Mormons, who seem shockingly ignorant of their own doctrine and history.

Mormonism seems a lot like Catholicism in the way it's escapees remain obsessed with it's absurdities and obscenities.

I'm guessing that a Mormon upbringing damages a person's capacity to live freely and be happy so severely that they must continue to symbolically kill the beast, escape from Babylon, repeat the repudiation, in the vain hope of someday being capable of free thought and happiness.

Based on personal contacts, I rank Mormons up there with Scientologists and Jehovahs Witnesses as people likely to make good presidents.

I trust those following the acrimony "Lacrima" has been spewing forth will note he has been reduced to insults and attacks exactly as I prophesied...BTW, Lacrima, I was precocious enough to avoid LDS baptism--the only one of my siblings--so spare me the presumptive insult, and regarding my family pathology, it was strictly an accident of birth. I consider my activities on exmormon.org as evidence of my strong desire to overcome the handicap of unfortunate natal circumstances.

Lacrima seems content, however, to remain immersed in his fantasy world; perhaps it's from the effects of that African sun he's brags about...

Juanita Brooks' volume "The Mountain Meadows Massacre" did not exonerate Brigham Young, and privately, she held the view he'd ordered it (conceding the evidence wasn't there to convict him), a view Will Bagley-with whom I had lunch with a few weeks ago--has taken very public (as seen in the PBS documentary aired last year).

Brooks deserve accolades for defying LDS pressure not to publish her book; she was a courageous woman who once sat outside the office of church leader David O. McKay with a list of historical documents on the matter she was asking for, only to be ultimately refused by his personal secretary... LDS suppression of legitimate history is another fact Lacrima may have trouble dissolving into his morning Ovaltine...

However, Brooks does repeat LDS folklore that tarnished the reputation of the Fancher Party, suggesting they'd provoked the Southern Utah settlers and somehow had a hand in inviting their own doom. There's also the nonsense about a mythical potent poison added to catte carcasses and a running spring (an utter impossibility) that she repeats, and she's in clear error in suggesting the Paiutes launched the initial attack (source: Bagley again, who notes there were perhaps three rifles among all the tribes of Southern Utah, and the initial volley killed or injured most of the adult males of the wagon train).

Brigham Young's histrionics about the Indians were pure posturing on his part, and it's absurd to suggest that situation justified the mass murder of women and children. Well, the justification is there if one considers he likely ordered the killings and knew he could blame the Indians as a move in his own diabolical chess game.

Yeah, veriy, the Cabbie doth prophesy that Lacrima shall shortly accuse him of repeating wicked anti-Mormon lies...

Gonna be a little tough to type while he's raising his arm to the square, however...

And I'm still amazed at the logic that blames me for being a late starter learning about MMM... Shoot, if I were a real jerk, I could say the same thing about Lacrima and DNA, since he's demonstrated marked ignorance on that one, and the essential information has been around since I was a teen-ager in the 60's. I'm comfortable discussing that subject as well, with, among others, Simon Southerton who's another friend of mine.

Honest, Lacrima, here's some advice to you: Don't pick fights with cabbies; some of us really are smarter than you, and worse, we have lots of smart friends as well...

And a honk of my horn to Jim H. and Elder George C. above...

Lacrima:
Attack, name calling, attack, nitpicking, attack. The hallmark of a Christian?

Mormonism fails the objective, intellectual test...miserably.

Mitt will force plural gay marriage on America

im glad this guy got up and tld his version of the truth. i have learned so much reading the comments today.

i had no idea there had been a massacre. i didn't know about the wedding issue until the woman talked about her daughters' wedding. how does a christian church go along with excluding family from their daughters' most important day? what daughter goes along with that without at least some "brainwashing"?

much like scientology the "church" doesn't want it's members around non-believers. it's easier to keep them in line that way (btw, huckabee and his crowd are the same way).

i was recruited as a 14yr ld black kid for the church when we moved to california in the late 70's. the only thing i knew about them was that they were really nice, clean and white, which having left chicago, i really wanted to be. of course my elderly had mentioned they were a cult and were no better than the kkk.

finally one day as i was defending them a jeff spicoli like stoner said "washington don't you know they get extra points for catching coons?" i asked my mormon "friends" and while not getting points they certainly got extra praise for blacks and "mexicans". then i actually read the book.

omg what a load of crap! it was a weird version of the bible with the names changed. i would sit with a friend and laugh all day!

people, it's a cult and a weird one at that.

If Mike Huckabee had made racial comments about a leading black candidate or sexist comments about a leading female candidate, he would have been castigated by the media. How he was able to launch his surge on religious bigotry is dumbfounding to me. It seems that everyone is oblivious to the obvious.

In the event that Mitt Romney does not win the nomination, then history will show that Mike Huckabee pulled off the political crime of the century. It was Mike Huckabee that raised religious issues among Iowa evangelicals by comments toward Romney's religion.

As Huckabee's tactics started to show in the Iowa polls, Mitt responded with his "Faith in America" speech. Romney was then forced to work on damage control. Romney's efforts in Iowa payed off and he continued to rise back in the polls but the damage gave him a second in a state he held firmly until Huckabee's misuse of the public forum.

McCain saw his window and concentrated on New Hampshire while Romney was being unduely "occupied" in Iowa. Romney was forced to agressively address things detracting from what his positive messaging had been and did so famously. Romney then relied on comparison ads to contrast differences. These ads were constantly referred to as "attack ads" by Huckabee, who continually portrayed him as "desperate", and "attacking".

Now Huckabee is able to capitalize on such tactics. Because of his use of the majority evangelical state of Iowa and with the ignorance of the media toward the Mormon religion, he flew under the radar of a nation that has worked since Lincoln to erase such bigotry.

A majority of the nation now sees only that Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucus and know nothing of the back story. I think it important to present it. Observe for yourself and pass these perspectives along. We need a TRUE man for change and a proven record of turning things around in the oval office.

Vote Mitt Romney

http://www.youtube.com/v/xrfOdLqMogs&rel=1

This thread illustrates things I learned form living 20 years in Utah. Mitt is a good example of what I experienced there.
They play semantics,deny, cite unproven science with no understanding,deny their published and recorded history and cant admit they are wrong, LDS missionaries are brainwashed for two weeks in Provo Utah and learn comebacks and arguements to convert Christiand to Mormonism. Sadly Utah leads the national averages in suicide,divorce,prescription drug abuse,
teen pregnancy, and teenage suicide. The pressure and realization that all things are not as they have been taught is way too much for them to handle. I have many LDS friends and deep down, I feel very sorry with them as I see there frustration grow
as they realize reality contradicts their religion.

Your support of Mormon bashing only causes me to think LESS of your paper. Hatefulness such as this article spins should be beneath your dignity.

LDS Cabbie,

I didn't say you were a late starter. You said you were a late starter. Go read your own post. You were, as you say, "never exposed to this history until we were adults and ferreted out the facts on our own."

That's OK by me. I don't think that there is a particular age at which one needs to read about the MMM.

As to Brigham Young's culpability, it doesn't make much difference what Brooks believed or what Bagley says on PBS. If there is no evidence there is no evidence.

I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat myself, but I've already said that the MMM was horrible. Nothing the Mormons said afterwards justifies it. Does that work for you?

Facts are not anti-Mormon, they're just facts. What I find to be anti-Mormon is this incessant dwelling on the negative side of the Church. Yes, there are embarrassing things about the Church's history. One could say that of any religion. If that were sufficient to cause someone to give up his religion, there would be no religious people at all. And, once we were all secular, we would start discovering embarrassing things about humanity. Then, where would we go?

Martin Luther once called the world a "great sh*thouse" and so it is. The LDS Church certainly hasn't escaped its effects, but that doesn't change the fact that I love the Church and have received nothing but good from my years of membership. My beliefs have not kept me from professional success or from doing just about anything I want (I'm not sure why Phlegiston thinks Mormons/religious people have no freedom--maybe I just don't feel my chains).

I can understand why people leave the Church. It's a lot of work. Faith doesn't always overcome doubt. When I was an elders' quorum president years ago in California, I spent a lot of time with my inactive members and quite sympathized with a lot of them.

Most of them, however, didn't go off into extremes of antagonism; they just went on to other things, some happily, some not. It's this odd antagonism of some exes I don't understand.

I mean, I don't believe in flying saucers, but I don't spend my days attacking those who do.

It's a big world and far less than one per cent of it is Mormon. You ought to value us a rare and interesting culture and go after something larger and more common, say the Democratic Party. Wouldn't that be fun?

And, SLC Cabbie, I don't doubt you have intelligent friends, but it doesn't rub off. After all, I have rich friends.

This whole pathetic blog saddens me. People have a right to their religious beliefs, whether they believe in the Book of Mormon, Krishna, or little green elves. It is anti-American, irrational, and unfair for people like those on this site to deride, make fun of or belittle Mormons for believing something simply because they themselves find it hard to believe. Mormons are people. Period. They are no more dangerous than other people, they are no more crazy than other people, they are no more wrong-headed than other people. They are just people. Just because others don't think like you doesn't automatically make them evil. Be fair, friends. This all sounds like silly paranoia.

Whilst I am a strong believer in the separation of church and state, I also think it imperative to evaluate all aspects of any candidate running for the presidency of the USA, including their religious beliefs. I challenge anyone to tell me beliefs do not effect decision making.

The fact that Huckabee doesn't believe in evolution and prefers creationism reveals a basic lack of critical thinking, a lack that I do not want in any person who, as president, would control the most powerful military in the world.

Despite Romney's speech on the grand tradition of religious liberty his belief in the questionable tenets of Mormonism makes me question his ability to make rational judgements and right decisions.

I happen to believe in a universal God present in each and every point in creation (how else can a God be?). It represents a fundamentally different world view to those who believe eg that only Christians will be saved, that only believers in Allah will go to heaven, that only Jews are God's people, ....... With such a dualistic world view there are always others to dump ones aggression, insecurity, fear, etc. on - witness Bush and his axis of evil thinking. Don't tell me belief has no effect on policy making.

I wonder if the general unwillingness of the American people to question a candidate's religious beliefs hides a deep fear to question the tenets of their own religion? If so it indicates a serious lack of deep self awareness and an unwillingness to face truth.

With apologies to the late Molly Ivins, I believe that the second best free entertainment in the world is a good "food fight" over religious belief(s). (Molly gave the "best free entertainment" award to the Texas legislature when in session.)

Annalakshmi, if you will only vote for someone who believes in "a universal God present in each and every point in creation (how else can a God be?)," you might have a hard time finding a candidate to vote for. You are exactly the kind of person that I was talking about above--one with no tolerance for those whose beliefs differ from your own. Tolerance implies a fair and objective attitude toward people whose religious beliefs differ from one's own. Behavior, not belief, is the most important indicator of a person's true nature.

Lacrima claims that the ancestors of the Book of Mormon people were not Jewish. His own books says differently...2 Nephi, 33:8 in Nephi's words, says "I have charity for the Jew--I say Jew, because I mean them from whence I came." These folks also populated the Americas "from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east." Now how do you suppose that their semitic DNA could arbitrarily rearrange itself in so short a time so as to not leave a trace of same?

And how did these folks go to war in chariots with swords of steel when neither horses nor steel were to be found in the early Americas? One of your own apologists from FARMS (one of the propoganda arms of the LDS Church) suggested that Book of Mormon folks were mistaking tapirs for horses. Wow, can't you just picture an Arnold Gribert painting of the American version of Ben Hur but with a team of squealing pig-like tapirs carrying warriors into battle.

And why is your church now saying that the Hill Camorah in upstate N.Y. is not actually the place where over 2 million people lost their lives in epic battles? If that isn't the place then why did they build such an elaborate edifice to commemorate that hill?

Lacrima, you say that a band of thirty intermingled with locals and soon diluted their DNA, yet your Book of Mormon makes no mention of an existing population of people in the land. And if the area mentioned in your Book of Mormon took place in small area in Central America as is now contended, then why did God send Oliver Cowdery to be a missionary to the "Lamanites" in Missouri? And why does a piece of Egyptian hieroglyphic papyrus, that Joseph Smith "translated" turn out to be nothing but a pagan funeral script when translated by real Egyptologists? Wouldn't a thinking person suspect this 19th Century con man faked the rest of his works also?

Get your head out of the sand, Lacrima, a dose of reality might indeed bring you back to your senses.

For those who don't know, the ultimate goal of Mormon's is to become Gods of their own planets. It's the reason they live the way they live. It's a DIRECT defiance of the first commandment. And they call themselves christians? No way!!

"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them.

Lacrima, Tell me where they found any evidence of horses, wheat, barley, gold and silver coins used by the indians before the Spanish settlers? All of which are included in the book of Mormon's account of the Americas.

The only difference between a cult and a religion is the number of members.

Why does the Mormon Church have a 20 million dollar budget for apologists? I always thought that truth didn't require spin. For a church that professes a belief in divine revelation, it seems only too willing to let these apologists spin their own version of Mormonism. Why aren't these doctrines delivered from the pulpit instead of from these hired spin doctors?

This is, of course, how an amplifiew whispering campaign works. A candidate signifies his willingness to use religious bigotry as a weapon and his supporters keep repeating the tired and discredited tidbits. Some of them are sincere. Some of the are doing for a political purpose. Some of them are just ignorant. But for a columnist in a major newspaper to repeat this tired and discredited nonsense simply beacause someone not newsworthy himsel calls a press conference to repeat does the newspaper and its readers a serious diservice

I believe the Bible when it states in Revelation 3:21- To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

If that isn't Godhood what is it?

Just as a person can tell a newborn baby that someday it could be a CEO for their relatives company, I don't think it's any different to tell men they can someday be Gods. Most would only see the infant, some would see the potential.

I doubt that God's so unsure of Himself that He's threatened or offended that people would want to be like Him.

What good parent doesn't take it as a compliment that a child wants to be like them? Since we are talking about "men" I'm not worried they're going to get there anyday soon...but I'm pretty sure that Heavenly Father won't mind sharing His "recipe" on how to do it, with those that are capable of that responsibility.

In response to Meso:

1) First, I respond with a quote: "Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows that ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish." -- Austin Farrer

2) Where did you get the figure that the LDS Church spends 20 million dollars on apologetics? Interesting that you have such inside information on the Church's budget, when the Church's budget is a more tightly-kept secret than the recipe to Coke.

You've got to be kidding me. It's a commandment, the very first one. Most of the bible was written around the commandments. Equating God to a Ceo is so insulting I don't even know where to start. Besides that, Mormon's believe they will be God's of their own PLANET?!? Can we start that trend early and send them all to Pluto?

The Mormons believe there are trillions upon trillions of gods. February 18, 1855, Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, v.2, p.345: "If we should take a million of worlds like this and number their particles, we should find that there are more Gods than there are particles of matter in those worlds."

Flagar, my info comes from having close relatives at the very top of this pyramid scheme, as well as many drones at the bottom end (deceivers and deceived).

Meso:

More relevantly/substantively, how do you respond to the Farrer quote, given in response to your criticism:

"Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows that ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish."

Meso,

You're back. Good for you. If you read further in The Book of Mormon (I'm guessing that you're just proof texting), you'll find that the Lehites are descended from Joseph of Egypt, who was the ancestor of two tribes (read chapter 5 of First Nephi). Your quote establishes the fact that they originally lived in Jerusalem and partcipated in Jewish culture. Nephi liked the Jews, but was not one of them.

As to the rest of your post, without going into details, I've conceded that questions remain about The Book of Mormon, but I still believe its claims. I've read a good number of books on both sides, including "Kingdom of the Cults," "Maze of Mormonism" and their ilk, and would have to say that I think the historical claims of the BoM are more firmly established today than since it was published. Try reading Givens' "By the Hand of Mormon" published recently by Oxford Press.

Remember, I don't have to convince you of anything to remain a happy member of the Church. I only need to convince myself. You, however, seem feel a need to convince me, so go for it.

Gerry,

The belief that Christian salvation leads to godhood is hardly unique to Mormonism. Go read the article in Wikipedia on theosis I mentioned in a previous post. A belief in theosis was once at the heart of your Christianity and remains part of Orthodoxy even today (does that mean those guys go to Hell too?). If you read the "Concordia" article from the footnote, you'll see that Luther also believed salvations lead to godhood. I subscribe to Harvard Theological Review and they had an article in the last year or so on theosis in the writings of Calvin.

What this means is that you could become a traditional Christian, believe in your own future godhood and still hate Mormon theology. That sounds like a hard deal to pass up.

Mormons believe in a creative, challenging, and interesting eternity. I once asked a Protestant pastor what Christians would do for eternity. He answered that they would spend it delivering God's messages to the Jews who will inhabit the earthly Paradise. Sounds real fun.

Catholic Heaven must be even more boring. Look how Christians end up at the end of Dante's "Comedy."

Mark Twain wrote a great and really funny essay on this subject. Read it and you'll be even more tempted to leave your little born again cult and return to your Christian roots.

Dowert,

I fully agree with you. Outside of Facebook messages to my family, I don't think I had posted more than four or five lines before now. But, this has kept me entertained for two days. However, if the weather is clear in the morning, I'm off to Petra and Bethany.

Flagar, answer my question first: Why does your church rely on spin doctors to deliver their holy doctrine as opposed to claiming divine revelation and responding from the pulpit? Is this the new face of Mormonism...leaving it to paid apologists to spin this new version and quietly slipping it in under the radar?

In 1828, eight years after he supposedly had been told by God himself to join no church, Smith applied for membership in a local Methodist church.

I'm pretty sure that if God himself appeared before me and told me not to do something... I'm going to listen.

FRAUD

Lacrima,

I was raised a Mormon and although not active, later in my life I did read the Book of Mormon as well as the Pearl of GP and D & C. I did this in a study group of neighborhood couples. That study pretty much convinced me that I could't, in good conscience, remain a member and be a part of such a distortion of truth so I left the church shortly after these studies.

I suspect you, like most Mormons, were born into this religion and will do anything to defend it regardless of the lies you have to tell in support of it.

Come on Lacrima?
God's on your own planet? Besides that what about the obvious Plagiarism that occurs in the book of Mormon.

Many of the basic historical notions found in the Book of Mormon had appeared in print already in 1825, just two years before Smith began producing the Book of Mormon, in a book called View of the Hebrews, by Ethan Smith (no relation) and published just a few miles from where Joseph Smith lived. A careful study of this obscure book led one LDS church official (the historian B. H. Roberts, 1857-1933) to confess that the evidence tended to show that the Book of Mormon was not an ancient record, but concocted by Joseph Smith himself, based on ideas he had read in the earlier book.

The Book of Abraham is pretty darn similar to the Egyptian book of the dead as well.

Meso:

It's a false either-or to say that because the Church has apologists who defend its message, then it does not "claim[] divine revelation and respond[] from the pulpit." It actually does both.

Have you ever read the Church's Conference Reports? I would advise you to go to www.lds.org so that you can see what actually is taught from the pulpit before saying such things, but I realize it's so much easier for you to simply dismiss an entire religion out-of-hand than to actually give it fair treatment.

Critics of the Church speak volumes about their own lack of intellectual rigor when they resort to straw man arguments, false either-ors, and a host of other logical fallacies to dismiss what is actually a very rational theology.

Lacrima,

The Book of Mormon says that the Lamanites are the PRINCIPAL ancestors of the American Indians. Those same Lamanites were descended from father Lehi from Jerusalem. The LDS church has alway contended that these Jews established themselves in the New World. It sounds as if you are being an apologist for the church and putting a new spin on an old story. Could it be the complete lack of DNA evidence that's causing you people to completely change your story? Flip flop, flip flop.

God, I hate religion.

Meso,
Don't forget that they were light skinned jews before God Punished them and gave them brown skin. (According to the Book of Mormon).

PS - the "straw man arguments" I'm referring to are all the people (example: half the posts above) who gleefully refer to one obscure doctrine or historical footnote, usually quoted from the Journal of Discourses or some other source, and proceed to say, "FRAUD!" or some other trite comment.

Honestly, the more critics of the Church try to convince me with their weak, unreasoned, and illogical arguments, the more I become convinced of the truthfulness of the Church.

Meso, is it possible that you hate Mormon apologists because they are winning?

Gerry,

Where do you get this own planet stuff? I didn't know I got my own planet until a Protestant colleague of mine told me about it a few weeks ago. I told him thanks and invited him to come on over and go fishing with me someday. I hope he does.

You born agains have created a kind of Mormonism that no Mormon believes in. I've read several times in this series of posts that the things we think we believe are actually subterfuge and deception, and that the only way to true knowledge is to study with the antis. Don't you find that a bit strange?

What would you think if a Moslem came up to you and told you that only he could really explain your Christian beliefs, and that what you thought you believed was all just nonsense. Surely, even a born again can see the nonsense of that.

One reason Protestants get upset over the idea of godhood is that they tend to see God as a king. Kings don't like competition. Just look at how Herod reacted to the Wise Men's announcement of Christ's birth: He went out to slaughter the competition.

Mormons, however, see God as a father and fathers aren't really jealous of each other. I was a kid once and loved my father. When I became a father myself, I still loved and respected my father. And now that my kids are fathers, I still feel their love and respect, along with that of my grandkids. In other words, things just keep getting better.

God doesn't want us to be kids forever. He wants us to be great and good and powerful and creative. And, guess what? It doesn't threaten or diminish Him in any way. God will always be my father--loved, respected and obeyed.

What kind of God do you beleive in who can only maintain His status if surrounded by inferiors? Sounds like Herod to me. As I pointed out in my last post, your born again belief in eternal inferiority is by no means part of traditional Christianity.

Flagar,

Yes, I have watched LDS conferences hoping to glean something of importance to explain the discrepencies in their doctrine and reality. They have made no attempt to explain DNA studies, archaeological evidence, historical incongruities or any number of inconsistencies in doctrine. They apparently feel more comfortable letting the "hired guns" explain church doctrine and thus not getting their own hands dirtied in the fight for truth.

and since I grew up in the (christian) church:

Jesus probably DID have a serious martyr complex, and basically committed suicide by cop.

However, IF forced to choose, I would be much happier following the teachings and footsteps of a flaky peacenik than a con-man staying one step ahead of the law...

Let us start at the beginning, and according to Mormon theology/cosmology, the beginning is Kolob. Kolob is a star, where exactly it is located in the night sky is unknown. But this star of Kolob is a very special star, for it is the location of the first creation. One of the planets orbiting the star Kolob is the home planet of none other than God himself.

It is explained that on this planet orbiting Kolob, one day is the same as a thousand years of Earth time. Thus from this fact comes the statement in the Bible where it says that a day to the Lord is like a thousand years. A sort of scientific explanation to what was previously a spiritual statement.

The Exaltation of Man

So Kolob is the star around which orbits the home planet of God. But this raises further questions. Why does God have a home planet? Is he not God? Does his presence not fill the entire universe? Is that not the very definition of omnipresence?

In order to answer this question, we must explain that Mormons do not have the same ideas of God as normal Christians do. Most people assume that they do, but their conceptions of deity are in fact extremely different.

One of the most important differents (although by no means not the only) difference is this idea of the exaltation of Man. It is believed by Mormons that after the Resurrection (the Resurrection of all mankind, not just of Christ) all Mormons who have been baptized into the Mormon faith will receive new Resurrection Bodies that will make them the same as God. According to some Mormon thinkers, these resurrected Mormons will in fact go on to be Gods themselves, of their own worlds, which they will populate with their spiritual children. (This is only for the males, of course).

It is believed by Mormons that this is what happened to God. He was originally a man, just like us, before he became exalted and received the Resurrected Body. This is the first Creation, the first generation where Gods began to be, according to the hymn "If You Could Hie to Kolob." Mormon cosmology states that the universe is constantly expanding, as new generations of Gods continue to create and populate worlds of their own: endless creations.

Lacrima or Flagar,

How do you explain - horses - in the Book of Mormon. If you could satisfactorily explain that one conundrum (the historical lack of archaeological evidence to support their existence here before Columbus) then I might be more susceptible to your argument about the historical accuracy of your book. Just don't give me that story about tapirs...pleeeeeeez.

Gerry-
Please enlighten me~ If this scripture isn't talking about Godhood what is it talking about?

King James Version -Revelation 3:21- To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

I realize it rules out the Nicene Creed confusion but that would be another conversation....

As for the first commandment, I don't step on anyone's toes by believing in it, as well as Godhood.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me

Sorry for the ongoing "business" theme but if I have a boss, I'm obviously not going to offend him by running across town to ask someone else's boss any ?'s I might have.

I'm pretty sure men could become God's without forgetting who their God is...

Meso,

I think you've gone over the edge. Since you obviously haven't read the book, here is what it says on the point in question:

(I Nephi 5:14) And it came to pass that my father, Lehi, also found upon the plates of brass a genealogy of his fathers; wherefore he knew that he was a descendant of Joseph;

That is not called apologetics; it's called the ability to read a simple narrative passage and interpret its meaning. Did you score more than two digits on your SATs?

Lacrima,

you are quite the pompous a$$, aren't you? -- and nowhere as clever as you seem to think you are.

your religion is demonstrably racist, arrogant and exclusionary, (nor can it be defined as 'christian' -- not that I care -- by even the most liberal standards), a flavor that seeps into all your posts; well, to be fair, the arrogance and exclusion do-- bully for you that i couldn't get that sulphur whiff of racism from your posts...

To try to defend your beliefs by talking down your nose at others? that's just funny. Or, it would be if you didn't also try to proselytize. at which point it becomes simply annoying.

Gerry,

The Mormon Church is now shying away from the idea that God was once a man thing. You remember, "as man is now God once was; as God is now man may become". Gordon Hinckley says that's more of a couplet and that gets into some pretty heavy doctrine that we don't know very much about. Could it be that the church realizes they have been contradicting their own book?

Mormon 9:9 - "For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?"

Moroni 8:18 - "For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity."

Flip flop - flip flop.

This would make a good HBO mini series. Oh, someone already thought of that!

Sit with me in my throne? You can try to spin that into whatever you want. Here are some more not so vague scriptures.

Men cannot become gods (Isaiah 43:10). Man is a created being, unlike God who has always been (Genesis 21:33). God will not share his glory with another (Isaiah 42:8).

Religiosity can be cured. You first have to admit to yourself that you have a problem.

Lacrima, can you explain why I and my husband could not attend our daughter's temple wedding? I was never given a reasonable explanation for that. There is no other religion on the face of the earth that would not have allowed us to be with her and see her get married. No Christian religion operates this way.

I have read accounts of what actually goes on in the temple during the "sealing" (Mormon wedding) and it looks like the holy things they didn't want us to see were old fraternal handshakes, borrowed from the Freemasons. For that, they broke two parents hearts.

We were with our daughter for every part of her life, every event, every play, concert, school award; every celebration she participated in, but not there for her wedding.

How can your church ever talk about "family values" when they treat families like that?

Lacrima,

When Nephi says: 2 Nephi 33:8 "I have charity for the Jew -- I say Jew, because I mean them from whence I came."

2 Nephi 33:10 "And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ"

Maybe I don't have the education you have but it sure sounds to me as if he's calling himself a Jew here.

Mormonism is TRANSPARENT, sorry Lacrima. There are more questions than answers in the book of Mormon. I've tried asking questions to mormon missionaries and I get the burning busom response. "Faith and Doubt can't exist together, I just pray about it and I know the truth."

The Bible presents clear tests for those who claim to be prophets. In Deuteronomy 18:20-21 we are told that a prophet of God will never have false prophecies and will never teach false gods. We have already seen that Joseph taught false gods. But he also proclaimed several false prophecies. Keep in mind that it only takes one false prophecy to make one a false prophet.

Here is just one false prophecy. In Doctrine and Covenants section 84, Joseph prophesied that the city of New Jerusalem would be erected within his generation"in the Western boundaries of the State of Missouri." But to this day, the Mormon Church has failed to erect it. In fact, the Mormon Church does not even own that land on which Joseph said the city would be built. This clearly is a false prophecy. How could Joseph be a prophet of God?

Here's a whole slew of false prophecies by big Joe as I call him.

http://trialsofascension.net/mormon/prophecies.html

Maybe if the BoM and The Church aren't "true" we could all just decide that it's got the best plan out there, get on the same side, go back to God and say:

"what do you say, can we just try this plan-it's the best one?"

"we really don't want to sit around for eternity doing nothing more then praising you-no offense, we love you, it's just you let us do so much on earth that if you take things away, like our bodies, our families, we're gonna be a little bored for eternity?"

and " why did you have to send us to earth to deal with all the hell down there-wars, sicknesses, pain, and suffering, if there's just boredom as the reward back here?"....

Either "ALL" things are possible with God or they aren't, The Church is either true or it isn't...

I sometimes am a prophet. I usually can tell when I'm ready to blow a lot of hot air.

"... no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Artlice VI, US Constitution

Akers and the WaPo have stooped to tabloid journalism.

I have never seen Romney wear his religion on his sleeve until the emergence of the anti-Mormon rant. But I have been made aware of the SBC agenda:

...the SBC got serious about tempering the expansion of what was becoming the fastest-growing religion in the world [Mormonism]. They developed programs, trained pastors, hosted Mormonism-awareness conferences, and published articles to help spread the message to Southern Baptists that Mormonism was a dangerous cult religion they had to avoid. The SBC's Sunday School Board developed an instruction kit, "The Christian Confronting the Cults," that covered five religious groups: the Mormon Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Worldwide Church of God, the Unification Church (the Moonies), and Christian Scientists. The book quickly became the Sunday School Board's top-selling item. The Baptist Film Centers even purged two films produced by Brigham Young University from its distribution lists. Neither film addressed doctrinal issues, but the Southern Baptist Convention dropped the titles so as not to appear approving of Mormon-produced messages. All of these efforts against Mormonism, an SBC magazine explained, were "to help Baptists witness to Mormons without becoming 'Mormonized' themselves."

... The Mormon Church has met efforts from the SBC and other evangelical groups with silence. While it maintains its claim as "the only true and living church," the denomination has avoided targeting specific faiths in the way it has so often found itself in others' crosshairs.

From the article, Southern Baptists vs. the Mormons: Mike Huckabee's and Mitt Romney's Faiths Have Tangled Before. By Neil J. Young, Posted Wednesday, Dec. 19, 2007, Slate.com

My question is, has the Federal government looked into possible SBC violation of separation of church and state during political elections? It seems to me that we may have a conflict of interest here.

Ever wonder why we're warned to watch out for the "false" prophets in the end days? so we'll make sure we find the "true" one...

Meso,

It's really not that hard. The passage I quoted talks about genealogy.

The first one you quote refers to physical origin. Nephi really did come from them, but he didn't descend from them.

The second passage you quote refers to three groups: brethern, Jews, and the ends of the world, i.e., everybody else. Nephi always respected the Jewish role in the plan of salvation. He saw them as preservers of the scriptures and forebearers of the Messiah. He singled them out for special, if not always positive treatment, and tried to preserve the connection between his family and them.
But, he wasn't a Jew.

Really, these three passages are easily reconciled, and if it makes things any easier for you, the fact that the Lehites were descended from Joseph doesn't resolve the DNA question.

I'm still waiting, by the way, for the a reference to this devastating DNA article so many of you keep referring to. Surely one of you has actually read it? And, if it's so devestating, there must be a copy at ex-mormons.com or some other simalar site. I promise I'll read it.

Dadgumburnship, I had to peek in here one more time, and now I'll probaby be late for work cleaning up all the bullchip leavings with this new plow I hooked up on the front of the ol' police interceptor...

Lacrima alternately insults me and then tries to manipulate me with that platitude, "Membership in the LDS church isn't easy," apparently unsatisfied with the mission he doubtless filled for the church around age 20 (honest, guy, if you live long enough, they'll beg you to go on a senior mission; they even asked my inactive dad who hasn't paid a dime of tithing since he was 19).

And, incredibly, as a Mormon he claims never to have been exposed to "As man is God once was" doctrine that is part-and-parcel to the Gospel of eternal progression. Shoot, as the ward project, I heard about that one from the bishop's daughter, the one who taught me to french kiss...

Of course now the apostates' message to the faithful is, "As you are, we once were. As we are, you may become."

And here you go, Lacrima, I'm going to channel Satan for a second or two:

"Pssst, wanna hear how you can get a 10% pay raise?"

And then there's Flagar's denouncing the use of strawmen, only to use a strawman of his own (paraphrased, "Those who refer to something obscure, usually in the JOD, and holler, 'FRAUD1'")

Never read the JOD myself, but the quotes my ex-Mormon friends have pulled from it are scary. I do have a copy of Charles Larson's "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus" that overwhelming demonstrates the source papyrii for the Book of Abraham were from around the first century A.D. and not fifteen centuries earlier as Joseph Smith claimed.

Fraud. BTW, Larson was fired from a public school teaching job in Provo, Utah, for his authorship of this book.

And no steel, horses, elephants, wheat, or use of the wheel (all mentioned in the BOM) anywhere in the archaeological record of the New World. Fraud.

And Lacrima also trying some strawman tactics with that "Nephi was of the tribe of Joseph" spiel; that one's got some red herring elements, too since what's relevant is the DNA of Native Americans (there are five basic haplogroups of mtDNA that can be found in the Americas and traced to Siberia), and not Hebrews or Egyptians or Hottentots...

And anyone who believes Lehi's voyage is a possibility (forget the Jaredites, even) needs to review maritime sailing technologies in Arabia in 600 B.C. Them are mighty big oceans; I know, I almost drowned in one them once...

Lastly, Lacrima, you're right about one thing, membership in LDS, Inc. isn't easy. I realized I would bit when I decided I just can't seem to keep my mouth shut when I'm forced to listen to nonsense. Goes back to a TBM biology teacher who was a Bigfoot afficianado... Way back in '67, the year my generation invented pre-marital sex...

And that flaw of needing to speak up doubtless speaks more for my current occupation than any cerebral or psychological shortcomings...

But hang on until you can stand it anymore; you folks are great poster children for the problems of cognitive dissonance...

Irresponsible journalism at its worst.

It just demonstrates how low the press will go.

I believe this is the same National Press Club that called Robert Dole a crippled "gimp" during one of their meetings when he was running for president.

Totally disgusting...

Oh, and here you are Lacrima, a link to that copy of a DNA article featuring my friend Simon Southerton whom I mentioned above.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon285.html

"In the 1990s, DNA studies gave Mormon detractors further ammunition and new allies such as Simon G. Southerton, a molecular biologist and former bishop in the church.

"Southerton, a senior research scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Australia, said genetic research allowed him to test his religious views against his scientific training.

"Genetic testing of Jews throughout the world had already shown that they shared common strains of DNA from the Middle East. Southerton examined studies of DNA lineages among Polynesians and indigenous peoples in North, Central and South America. One mapped maternal DNA lines from 7,300 Native Americans from 175 tribes.

"Southerton found no trace of Middle Eastern DNA in the genetic strands of today's American Indians and Pacific Islanders."

Checkmate.

Lacrima,

Apparently the LDS boys in SLC know enough about DNA evidence to remodel their introduction in the Book of Mormon to read: AMONG the ancestors of American Indians...that one word change from PRINCIPAL ancestors of the American Indians speaks volumes about how they feel about DNA evidence. You probably didn't get the memo yet regarding this newest change.

If you need to read about DNA studies, perhaps Simon Sutherton's (former Mormon from Australia) work might be of interest. He was excommunicated for daring to challenge longheld Mormon beliefs about the pedigree of American Indians through his work in DNA. I suppose you're going to say you've never heard of him or his work?

PH,

I know I've been awfully sarcastic in my posts, but, in all sincerity, you have my full sympathy. I've had four kids get married so far, and it would have broken my heart not to be present.

In Europe, where I lived seven years, most countries don't accept church weddings as legally binding, so everyone gets married first at the town hall and then goes off to church, synagogue or temple for a second wedding. I think we could do something like that in the US. Let couples like yours get married first in the chapel so both families could attend, and then let the two of them go off to the temple to be sealed. That only takes five minutes or so. With increasing numbers of convert members, it seems like that would be a humane concession to everyone's feelings. Since it's already done in other parts of the world, it doesn't seem likely that any doctrinal considerations would prevent it being done in the States.

It's about time someone asked Mitt what the Law of Consecration means when it says: You and each of you COVENANT and PROMISE before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept he Law of Consdertion as contained in this, the Book of 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

Mitt has taken this oath and we deserve an answer as to how he can reconcile that with keeping the LDS at arm's length as president.

And in response to the comments that the LDS is like other Christian religions, the truth is that it has more resemblances to Islam. It may name Jesus in the church's title but they, clearly, have 1) superseded Christ with another prophet who is central to their beliefs, 2) adopted other primary sources ("Book of Mormon", "Pearl of Great Price" and "Doctrines and Covenants") and 3) present themselves as the only true church.

The differences between Christianity and the LDS don't preclude anyone from voting for Romney but they have a clear right to know who and what they are voting for and Romney has yet to be forthcoming about the core beliefs that his church has a long-standing policy of being very circumspect about.

The provisions of the Law of Consecration, on the other hand, should give a responsible voter pause -- particularly in light of the LDS history of theocracy in UT and their extraordinary activist role in denying the women of America the protection of the Equal Rights Amendment.

PH,

I know I've been awfully sarcastic in my posts, but, in all sincerity, you have my full sympathy. I've had four kids get married so far, and it would have broken my heart not to be present.

In Europe, where I lived seven years, most countries don't accept church weddings as legally binding, so everyone gets married first at the town hall and then goes off to church, synagogue or temple for a second wedding. I think we could do something like that in the US. Let couples like yours get married first in the chapel so both families could attend, and then let the two of them go off to the temple to be sealed. That only takes five minutes or so. With increasing numbers of convert members, it seems like that would be a humane concession to everyone's feelings. Since it's already done in other parts of the world, it doesn't seem likely that any doctrinal considerations would prevent it being done in the States.

I find it interesting that Romney's Mormon faith continues to be one of the most talked about points on the BLOG's and the only reason many of the BLOGGER's say they will not vote for Romney. In a nation where women and blacks did not have the right to vote when the country was founded, but religious freedom was guaranteed and religion was purposely eliminated by law as a litmus test for public office, we brag about how far we have come as a country in overcoming bigotry and prejudice by having a black man, Obama, and a woman, Clinton, running for president. What about the religious freedom that was guaranteed by the Constitution and the elimination of religious affiliation in determining the viability of a political candidate? Maybe we haven't come as far as we are bragging about. Maybe we still have bigotry and prejudice as a core issue in this country.

The Evangelical Christians, who seem to make up the majority of the aforementioned bloggers, feared the same issues regarding religion when John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, was running for President. They feared that he would allow the Pope to run or influence the White House and US public policy through John F. Kennedy. There were many Evangelical Christians who openly opposed John F. Kennedy purely on the basis of his Catholic religion. They tried to convince their congregations that Kennedy would follow the Pope or use the Presidency to forward a Catholic agenda. They preached that the Catholic Church would gain followers from their congregations as a result of a Catholic in the White House.

The Evangelical Christians were proven wrong. Kennedy never allowed the Pope to set the political agenda of the United States, nor did Kenneday have power to do that. This country was designed with a number of checks and balances to prevent any such thing from happening. Kennedy would have had to have collusion within Congress and complete control over the Supreme Court in order to forward a Catholic agenda.

We have the same record with Romney. He never attempted to forward a Mormon agenda in Massachusetts as govenor. The fear of the Evangelical Christian's concerning Romney's fatih is completely unfounded, just like it was with Kennedy's Catholic religion.

The Evangelical Christians should be asking themselves, "What would Jesus do?". Would Jesus discriminate against another person on the basis of their religious affiliation or faith. The "Golden Rule" would answer the question for them. The parable of the good samaritan is the example set forth by Jesus concerning religious differences and how they should be dealt with.

All of the hypocritical so-called "Christians" out there who are sharing their garbage should act like the "Christians" they pretend to be.

" I think we could do something like that in the US. Let couples like yours get married first in the chapel so both families could attend, and then let the two of them go off to the temple to be sealed. That only takes five minutes or so. With increasing numbers of convert members, it seems like that would be a humane concession to everyone's feelings. Since it's already done in other parts of the world, it doesn't seem likely that any doctrinal considerations would prevent it being done in the States."

Yeah, it does seem like a humane concession, but is not allowed in the United States. The reason the Church allows it in other countries is because those laws don't accept religious forms of marriage as legally binding.

If you were to get married in he courthouse and then want to go straight to the temple, you would be required to wait 1 year before attending the temple.

If you don't believe me, go ask your bishop.

Roy,

It's just a matter of wanting to know more about the cult that Romney belongs to and what similarities it may have to cults represented by Jim Jones, David Koresh or L. Ron Hubbard, to name a few. Voters should be entitled to scrutinize Mitt or anyone who has sworn allegiance to such groups.

Any members of the LDS Church should boycott this BLOG. Do not lend it any legitimacy by acknowledging it at all. This is the very type of people and propaganda that led to the persection and death of many of the early members of the Church... including members of my family.

Roy,

You're too late on that boycott, this site is crawling with Mormon faithful, trying desperately to pretend they are mainstream Christians.

Sorry Gerry,
You're not allowed to paraphrase scripture and then call them not so "vague"... nice try.

Haven't enough people been accused of "adding" to the scriptures already?

Post Mo,

You idiot. You said exactly what I said. Of course the one-year waiting period is the problem. That's what we would like to resolve.

Roy, Roy, Roy:
Wow! It's amazing how you can go from civil discussion and talking about the Mormon Church to saying "This is the very type of people and propaganda that led to the persection and death of many of the early members of the Church... including members of my family."

This comment would be hilarious if I didn't think you were serious. I highly doubt that any of these people want to see harm come to another...and if any do, they are nuts. Chill out.

The truth should withstand scrutiny. Why the boycott?

SL Cabbie,

I'm aware of the Mormon plan of salvation, I was just unfamiliar with the private planet plan. Tell me more. Do we get to design our own, like in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"? Or do we have to take something ready made?

I quite like the idea. I'm beginning to realize the advantages of letting someone else determine all my beliefs. Sometimes people come up with some really cool stuff.

Cabbie, I'm not trying to manipulate you, because I honestly don't care what you believe. I'm just having fun on the net.

By the way, you blew the joke. It goes like this:

Question: What does it mean to be excommunicated from the LDS Church?

Answer: A ten per cent raise and another free day on the week end.

Our version is much better than yours.

Elder George Carlin

If you were a faithful Elder of the Church you would know what the Church teaches about arguing about Church doctrine. Your comments betray your intelligence and your judgment.

If you are a full-time missionary of the Church, you are in violation of mission rules by merely being on the BLOG. If you are not a full-time missionary of the Church then you have no right to use the title Elder.

Thanks to all for the insights posted here.

Of course one cannot win an argument with a Mormon - they have an answer to everything.

But it helps to be reminded of the horrid inconsistencies and hidden agenda of that organization.

Hopefully it will eventually get swallowed up and digested within traditional Christianity.

"You idiot. You said exactly what I said. Of course the one-year waiting period is the problem. That's what we would like to resolve."

Oooh, does that make you feel like a big tough man? Calling people names? Sitting there all alone in your little hotel room with nothing to do but insult people?

I think it just makes you look like one big arse.

Just who is this "we" who wants to resolve this 1 year waiting period. The leaders of the Church aren't doing anything about it. IT'S BEING USED AS A SCARE TACTIC.

Stories are flown around about couples who waited to be sealed, but before they could get to the temple, one of them died in a car crash.

Any temple-going couple wanting to wait to be sealed is told by their bishops that marrying in the temple is more important than pleasing everyone and that their salvation depends on them not waiting.

It's a bunch of bull s*** to me.

Just like all the hot air your blowing that smells a lot like manure...

Meso,

The change to the BoM you people keep talking about was a change to the preface, a modern document that gets replaced every few decades anyway. That's hardly earth shaking. That particular change has been in the works for awhile. Most literate Mormons these days realize that the majority of Indians are of Siberian stock.

The limited geography of the BoM (read "Mormon's Map") doesn't make the Siberian thing a problem for us.

If the Sutherton article is the devastating article you've referring to, of course I've read it. There's nothing new in it and it has been--not refuted--but put into perspective by a number of people with credentials equal to Sutherton's. Try reading some of these articles: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/dna.php

I know, it's BYU and it's Mormons talking about their own religion and that's not allowed, but try reading them anyway. They're interesting.

As I wrote to Cabbie way back when, the DNA question is still open--for both of us.

Post Mo,

I didn't mean to insult you. Your post made me think objectively that you're an idiot. Your second post didn't change my mind.

SL Cabbie and Meso -

Please, enlighten me - as a faithful Mormon, it sounds like you believe me to be lost.

Share your wisdom, what must a man do to be saved?

"Sometimes people come up with some really cool stuff."

yeah. like magical mystery tablets and salamanders with magic eyeglasses to read them.

or something.

not to mock you.

I'm an elder and I have the GAS to prove it. HA HA lighten up people you only live once or maybe not.

"I didn't mean to insult you. Your post made me think objectively that you're an idiot. Your second post didn't change my mind"

And what exactly is your "objective" basis from my comments that deem me "an idiot".

I can safely say, whatever basis you have, I have equal "objective" basis to call you a lonely, sad man, who probably has no friends.

Oh, and also an idiot.

Roy, this isn't my real name. George Carlin is a comedian.

I put Elder on it out of jest because I thought it would be funny to put a religious title on him. If you know anything about Carlin, which it sounds like you probably don't, then you'll know what I mean.

Roy, I was an Elder for the church for many years. I went to seminary, served an honorable LDS Mission, held various leadership positions, attended BYU, married in the Salt Lake Temple, and last year after many years of struggling with my Mormon faith, I chose to resign.

No one offended me and I didn't do so in order to do immoral things. I am still the same loving husband, father, son and friend but without believing in Mormonism. This realization was one of the hardest things I was ever forced to accept. I can't tell you enough how glad I am...although I understand how you can't understand this. I have many family and friends who are still LDS and they are very good-hearted, loving people. I want all the happiness in the world for them. However, I think it's important for people to see both sides of the issue. The church certainly doesn't want you to even read non-faith promotings viewpoints...which I always thought was odd considering I felt the truth should withstand scrutiny. Truth is more than a warm feeling...if not supported by facts, then it should at least not be contrary to solid scientific and well-documented historical evidence. With all due respect Roy, I personally feel countless claims the church makes, fall flat on it's face when faced with objective scrutiny. I left the church to hold onto my integrity and if there is a God, then I feel I can hold my head up high for doing what I did.

Regards,
Elder George Carlin

"Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Dan Tranger,

If we have answers for everything, maybe you should consider the possibility we're right.

Lacrima,

It's a shame that Joseph Smith didn't know about the limited geography theory.

'The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western tribes of Indians. By it we learn that our western tribes of Indians are descendants from that Joseph who was sold into Egypt, and that the land of America is a promised land unto them.' (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 17).

'He [Moroni] told me of a sacred record which was written on plates of gold, I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited, he said the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham.' (Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, Diary 1835-1836, pg. 76).

I guess Moroni forgot to mention all of their non-Israelite ancestors. I'm very surprised that you would defend such a book, given that it contains a racist ideology with its numerous descriptions of light skin and its bearers as good and dark skin and its bearers and loathsome and disobedient. These beliefs are typical of views on race that many held in the U.S in the early nineteenth century.

Of course, most people and groups have repudiated such antiquated bigotry as inaccurate, patronizing, and offensive to the indigenous peoples of the Americas. It's such a shame that you defend such a work. Perhaps in your ignorance you think that you are actually being clever or even useful. I feel so sorry for you.

Here are the top 10 biggest problems with Mormonism.
1. Book of Abraham is proven to be a fraud. Joseph's translation is known to be wrong.

2. The Book of Mormon is a ripoff of "View of the Hebrews" as summarized by Elder B. H. Roberts.

3. The whole account of the Native Americans is rediculous. There is no evidence of the wars, culture, or cities that Joseph Smith wrote about. The idea that God punished them by turning their skin brown is not only ignorant but racist.

3. It's all in the archeology. No evidence of horses, elephants, metal money, wheat, barley before the spanish settlers, contrary to the BOM.

4. Joseph Smith is a proven false prophet. Deuteronomy 18:20-21 we are told that a prophet of God will never have false prophecies and will never teach false gods.

5. Mormon's believe they will become Gods which contradicts the first commandment.

6. Joseph didn't know his head from his rear. On April 23, 1843 a set of brass plates was discovered in an Indian mound near Kinderhook, Illinois. When presented to Joseph, he pronounced them to be authentic ancient records. They were proven to be forgeries just a few years later.

7. Joseph has several versions of his first vision. Over the years Joseph's story changed from an event in the year 1823 to 1821 to 1820. Depending on the account Joseph gave, it was either a spirit, an angel, two angels, many angels, Jesus, and finally, the Father and the Son. For such a momentous event, it seems to me that one's recollection would be much clearer, had it actually occurred.

8. If god really instructed Joseph Smith not to join any church than why did he apply to join the Methodist church 8 years after his vision.

9. Oliver B. Huntington recorded in his journal in 1881 that Joseph F. Smith, who became the sixth President of the Mormon Church, taught the Lord gave Joseph Smith the exact English wording and spelling that he should use in the Book of Mormon. If this is true why have there been so many changes from stances on polygamy to racist teachings?

10. Major contradictions to the Old and new testament regarding heaven, hell, jesus, god. Pretty much all the major points.

As a former Mormon (no I was not excommunicated or disciplined, nor was I offended by anything someone said to me. I simply decided I had outgrown the Mormon church; it just didn't fit any more, so I left) it is fascinating to see this level of emotion and response.

It also interesting that as powerful a religion and force as it is in the U.S. and the world, most people don't know that much about the Mormon Church or the doctrines and practices of Mormonism.

Even many faithful members don't seem to know that much about the church and its doctrines. It's not easy. They are told to only read materials that are favorable in treatment to the Mormon Church and its doctrines and policies (usually church sanctioned publications). Anything critical in tone or message about the Mormon church, its doctrines, policies, practices are to be distrusted and disbelieved. The messenger should also be "shot" as a matter of course.

The people who seem to know the most about Mormonism are folks who "studied themselves out of the church." They have learned there are many sources of good, objective information about the church and no longer wear blinders.

Elder George Carlin

You may chose to believe what you will or chose to believe nothing.

You mention that you have friends and family that are still faithfull members of the Church. Your actions betray them, whether you believe in Mormonism or not.

I have many friends of other religions and would never consider belittling or attacking their faith. I have respect for all religion, I hold it all sacred, and treat it accordingly... because that is a principle that I have been taught throughout my life as a member of the Mormon faith.

I can think of no more cruel practice than denegrating, destroying, or attempting to destroy the religious faith of another person.

Roy Drew said,

"I have many friends of other religions and would never consider belittling or attacking their faith. I have respect for all religion, I hold it all sacred, and treat it accordingly... because that is a principle that I have been taught throughout my life as a member of the Mormon faith.

I can think of no more cruel practice than denegrating, destroying, or attempting to destroy the religious faith of another person."

I guess that you did not attend the temple prior to 1990, when Christian ministers who received compensation for their ministry were depicted as being in the direct employ of Satan.

I also assume that you have never read the Book of Mormon, what with its description of the great and abominable church, which is clearly a representation of Christian faiths generally and Catholicism in particular.

Amidst the discussions of religious tolerance, or lack thereof, of the various posts above, it seems to me the elephant in the room is the extent to which Mormonism looks like complete hogwash to those of us not in the faith, from the story of the golden plates that nobody else can see, to the genetic absurdities conflating Native Americans with lost tribes, to the plagiarism noted by many in the Mormon scriptures. I find it terrifying to contemplate the unconscious dishonesty required by an adult to strenuously maintain beliefs that, on some level, they must see as ridiculous, and what it would mean for us to have a president who had the ability to maintain such absurdities.
I apologize if these views cause any Mormon readers pain, but I feel that such things must be said.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/romneys-fishy-d.html

Romneys misleading people again !

Steve makes excellent points.

Now that we've thoroughly thrashed or defended the LDS religion, we can conclude we're getting nowhere.

Trying to prove/disprove a religion based on historical and/or other logical arguments can't be done. The sands of time move. Civilizations rise, fall, are conquered and scattered. Records are distorted, forgotten or lost. Languages evolve, word meanings are lost in translation. When it comes to religion, answers can only come on an individual basis from god, whatever you believe him to be.

We have a choice, a secular progressive fascist or a Mormon, a Baptist or non committed Rudy, Thompson or Ru Paul.

Personally I am not electing a Pope, a Minister, a Pastor, a Rabi or a priest, I am electing a President of the United States in whom I hope to have him meet the highest expectation of my Values.

I want a President who will seal the borders, Send all the illegal aliens home, fine and jail all their employers. A President that will fix the broken Washington DC Gov, a President who will Veto all pork Barrel bills, one that has a veto pen a huge as the bills placed before him, a President whom will continue the war against Islamist Fascists and one that will increase our Military. One that will nominate conservative judges, and a President with balls who will stand up to the Democrats and yell at the top of his voice, Stop supporting our enemy, stop calling all Republicans right wing nuts. A President that will stop the attack against our right to protect ourselves with Guns, have a wiretap policy that Democrats hate but the people love.

That Candidate is Mitt Romney.
Rudy, Chukabee, McCain all will give amnesty to Illegal aliens, or have them pay a fine and let them stay, either way its still amnesty.
McCain would not vote yes for the Tax breaks we got, yes McCain fought hard against any tax cuts. Huckabee raised the taxes of his state 500 billion dollars, Fred Thompson voted liberal far too many times, he traded 2 votes for one and we lost. Yes Romney did some funny things, but he is the only one during the debates who says he will be a true conservative.

Ed McGarvey Pa

To distill all this down to truth and nothing but the truth, read the following persons' contributions: Steve, Paperboy, Ex-Necrodunker, Diane Pearce and Texas Baptist. There is a barrel of garbage here, but these and a very few others are telling the truth. I read one erroneous definition of a cult...actually a cult is a group that is not what it claims to be--fits LDS to a tee.

I can see why born agains don't feel the need for living prophets. You've got people like Kalea who can declare the truth with more confidence than Isaiah.

Gerry,

You're so dogmatic and wrong, I might almost conclude you're an evangelist. Let's look at your points one by one:

1. Wrong. Although the Book of Abraham is unproven, it certainly is not dead. Read, if you do read, the following articles for a start: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=93; http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=92. You might have to join FARMS to get access, but membership is cheap.

2. Wrong again! I've read the Roberts' article and he came to no such conclusion. I've also read "View of the Hebrews" and don't think it would even be possible to come to that conclusion (unless, of course, you're an evangelist--you guys seem to be able to conclude anything). I bought my copy of "View of the Hebrews" at BYU Bookstore, by the way. Here's a good quote for you: "Finally, on or about 1 September 1933, just a few weeks before his death, B. H. Roberts told Jack Christensen, "Ethan Smith played no part in the formation of the Book of Mormon. You accept Joseph Smith and all the scriptures." You can find the whole article with foot notes at:http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/pdf.php?filename=NTE2MDYzMzEyLTktMS5wZGY=&type=cmV2aWV3

3. We've discussed the archeology before. It doesn't prove The Book of Mormon, but it sure isn't hurting it. The article on Roberts I posted above summarizes some of the latest research. I'm an amateur archeology buff and I can tell you that most archeologists would also tell you that their research shows that much of the biblical text is also wrong.

This business of the BoM being racist is just another one of those dogmatic statements without any support. The Nephites and the Lamanites are not separate races, they're two social groups, one urban and the other rural. Those two groups have always despised each other, and the rural group tends to be darker than the urban group. I've lived in Central Asia for the last five years and that's exactly the situation there. Now I live in Iraq and see the same thing. For an exmaple closer to home, look at 19th century England. Even the Republican/Democratic split in the US tends to be rural/urban as the attached electory maps from 2004 show: http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/

It isn't race, it's lifestyle and sunshine.

4. We see, as Paul says, through a glass darkly. Joseph Smith wasn't always right, but as one who has enjoyed the blessings of the Restoration, I think he's about as good as it gets. By your standards, Paul was also a false propher, since he clearly thought Christ would return in his own lifetime. That should save you a lot of reading in the NT.

5. Wrong again. You clearly did not read the Wikipedia article on theosis. If you are right, then even Martin Luther was a heretic. Read, my friend. Many orthodox Christians today and throughout history have believed that salvation leads to divinity. It's not a Mormon innovation.

6. Wrong again. The Kinderhook plates were fake, but Joseph Smith, despite his initial interest in them, never pronounced them authentic. See http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/pdf.php?filename=MTMzMzMyMjM5OS00LTEucGRm&type=cmV2aWV3

7. "There are fewer differences between the various accounts of Joseph Smith's first vision than between the five different accounts of the apostle Paul's first vision and his trip to Damascus (Acts 9:1-30; 22:5-21; 26:12-20; Galatians 1:11-24; and 2 Corinthians 11:32-33) or in the various accounts of Christ's resurrection found in the four gospels. (For example, did the men with Paul hear the voice but see no man, as in Acts 9:7, or did they see the light but not hear the voice, as in Acts 22:9?) Indeed, there are no blatant contradictions between Joseph Smith's accounts--only different emphasis--as would be expected when someone recounts an event from his life at different times and in different circumstances." A good book to read on this is "Opening the Heavens."

8. This falls under the category of "who cares?"

9. This point is so incoherent I don't know what to reply to. Maybe you can clarify.

10. Wrong again. I once spent almost a year working through the NT with a Church of Christ pastor. He originally invited me to his home to prove the LDS wrong, but after awhile had to concede that the LDS have their New Testament ducks in order, even though he didn't agree with us. We eventually became quite good friends and the year was well spent, I think, by both of us.

The LDS sunday school curriculum spends two out of its four-year cycle on the Bible (the other two are Book of Mormon and Church history). We read the Bible all the time (King James is our version) and have no problem finding the Gospel in it.

If these are the only 10 serious problems with the LDS church, we're in pretty good shape. Thanks for pointing that out.

Roy:
You said that since I have friends and family that are still faithful members of the Church, my actions betray them.

I absolutely do NOT agree with you. I feel it is critically important that people have the entire story when voting for a candidate running for the President of the United States who is a member of an organization that has a long history of racism, sexism, and getting involved in politics.

As I mentioned on Sunday, Mitt and the church will tell you the church doesn't get involved in politics, however the LDS Church most certainly does get involved in politics (e.g., Prop 22 in California, etc.) even though they tell the media otherwise, because they don't want to lose their tax-exempt status.

Many LDS members have a persecution complex and cry how unfair that "intolerant bigots" make Mitt Romney's religion an issue in his candidacy, even though it was Mitt himself who made his religion an issue from the start and with his asinine comments like "Freedom requires religion". It's astounding these LDS people don't see the hypocrisy of their words when then church is intolerant of:
- Gays
- Other religions and churches. The LDS Church claims "We are the ONE TRUE CHURCH on the earth." History well documents the Mormon church claimed the Catholic church as "The wh*re of the Earth".
- Historians have been excommunicated by the church for publishing books based on actual events in Mormon history
- Black males, who the LDS Church has long said (and still says) were "descendents of Cain and less than valiant in the preexistance" as the reason for not getting priesthood until 1978
- Couples in interracial relationships. Current leaders in the LDS hierarchy have spoken out against interracial marriage. Brigham Young even preached such couples should be put to death.
- and on and on

It's ironic how the LDS Church wants others to be tolerant of their intolerant faith, yet they'll turn around and battle if you even question their history, believe in a different God (or no God), or have a different view of civil rights.

Lacrima:
Gerry made the statement: "If god really instructed Joseph Smith not to join any church than why did he apply to join the Methodist church 8 years after his vision?"

You said: "This falls under the category of "who cares?"

Who cares? Joseph Smith claims he was told by God not to join any church, then goes ahead and does it anyway? I think this should fall under the category of "BS, it never happened".

All religions are man-made. Polygamy is widely practised in all civil societies under different guises- Islam allows men to have up to four wives; married men and women of non-polygamous religions have more frequent extra-marital relationships. Religion in the modern world is big business and competition is extremely high as money buys influence and power. Ordinary innocent people, blindfolded and misguided by promises of eternal salvation are the real victims. Mormonism is just one of the many established institutions competing in this global market and of course the message has to be modified in order to maintain authenticity. Let us pray for more $$$$$$$ souls.

Yes, Mormonism is a cult with a murderous past.

http://www.truthandgrace.com/mormonhistory.com

George Carlin Politically Incorrect, May 29, 1997:
In the BS Department, a businessman can't hold a candle to a clergyman. 'Cause I gotta tell you the truth, folks. When it comes to BS, big-time, major league BS, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims: religion. No contest. Religion easily has the greatest BS story ever told.

Think about it, religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man, living in the sky, who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you.

He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good BS story. Holy (blank)!

I say "who cares" because joining the Methodist church would have consisted of little more than attending meetings and letting his name be listed in a roll book. I guess I just don't believe in a God who would reject someone for hanging around with Methodists, a rather decent group of people. It's not as if he had joined the Mafia.

I also say "who cares?" because obviously the Lord didn't care. Two years later Joseph was allowed to organize the Church.

Is he for real? Can he not see the falacy in his thinking? He probably thinks I am talking about someone else.

Donna summer:

Did you know that people thought Jesus' teachings were cultish, and that Catholicsm is considered a cult? You need to identify that this is your view since this is not the reality.

So, tell me, what other religion can we bash and lie about, in the name of humanity and Christ? We have many religions/faiths because we have many points of view -- so, if the religion is not of your liking, I guess that means you should trash it. I'm thinking that maybe we don't have quite enough hate in this world, we need to make sure that we look to attack, spew, falsify, mislead, pander, spin and post comments which encourage contention and divisiveness. What do you really think the intent of this article is for? Take a moment and think about it. Be honest.

If you'd like to know what the "Mormon" church (The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints) REALLY believes, go to: www.mormon.org

You know how people are when they hate something, their deliverance is biased. People with common sense and intelligence would pursue the topic on their own and make their own decision based upon their findings.

Someone interested in the Jewish faith would not ask a "Hitler".

Freedom of Religion.

The Mormon faith is no different that other faiths - there is a challenge of disbelief - but that is the nature of faith. The Mormon faith does have unique attributes - like being in direct opposition to the Catholic Church. This is not a reformation church, it is THE RESTORED CHURCH. Restored because the Catholic Church is the church of the Devil. It is just another belief system.
Ohg.
http://thefiresidepost.com/2007/10/10/mormons-the-beginning-theology/

Lacrima, 'ol buddy, here is Joseph Smith's claim (from the LDS Church's website):

"My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)--and which I should join.

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 ccorrupt; 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 gpower thereof."

HE AGAIN FORBADE ME TO JOIN WITH ANY OF THEM..."
From: http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1

So it's clear that Joseph Smith said God told him not to join ANY other church, yet then he does anyway.

Now you claim, "I guess I just don't believe in a God who would reject someone for hanging around with Methodists, a rather decent group of people."

Lacrima, Then you don't believe in Joseph Smith's first vision. These were Joseph Smith's words not mine. I don't have anything against Methodists, but don't try to muddy or sidetrack the issue here. Joseph Smith either lied about seeing God, or, after claiming to have seen God and Jesus Christ face-to-face, he went ahead and did something they were adamently specific about.

Elder George,

Nice joke, but let's follow up. Try replacing "religion" with "state." The state takes from me three or four times as much money as religion ever did (and I pay my tithing). If it can't get more money out of me, it borrows insatiably and leaves the debt to my children and grandchildren.

My church sent me on a two-year mission. The state has sent me and millions of others from one war to the next over my lifetime and throughout our history.

God imposed ten commandments on me and gave me a way to repent without punishment. The state imposes more rules than any human can comprehend and will destroy me and my family if I break them.

But it does all this for my own good. And it always wants more money. etc., etc, etc.

I hope that, along with giving up religion, you've also become a Libertarian.

Elder George,

I do believe the first vision. I just don't believe that a) Joseph Smith was perfect or needed to be in order to be a prophet, and b) as I've already mentioned, the hanging around with Methodists was enough to make him or anyone else fall from grace.

Jospeh liked Methodists and they returned the favor by joining the Church by the thousands during the 19th century. Felix culpa, as they say.

Lacrima: So you acknowledge that Joseph Smith went ahead and joined another church after seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ face-to-face who specifically told him NOT to. Then you say "I don't believe Joseph Smith was perfect." Wow, I would think not. Considering, he did something that God and Jesus Christ told him not to after seeing them both face to face.

You are certainly the spin-meister.

Now, let's talk about which first vision Joseph Smith referred to, as he had almost ten different documented "first vision" stories. The one I gave you is currently (as of 2008) the church-sanctioned version.

The official account of this first vision found in Mormon Scripture (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith -- History, 1:14-20) was not recorded by Joseph Smith until 1838, 18 years AFTER the supposed event. However, for years before this, Joseph, and his close associates did talk about his early visionary experiences. These earlier accounts contain significant variations from the official First Vision account. Presented in chronological order.
• 1827 Account of Joseph Smith, Sr., and Joseph Smith, Jr., given to Willard Chase, as related in his 1833 affidavit.
• 1827 Account by Martin Harris given to Rev. John Clark, as published in his book Gleanings by the Way, printed in 1842, pp. 222-229.
• 1830 Interview of Joseph Smith by Peter Bauder, recounted by Bauder in his book The Kingdom and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, printed in 1834, pp. 36-38.
• 1832 Earliest known attempt at an 'official' recounting of the 'First Vision, from History, 1832, Joseph Smith Letterbook 1, pp.2,3, in the handwriting of Joseph Smith.
• 1834-35 Oliver Cowdery, with Joseph Smith's help, published the first history of Mormonism in the LDS periodical Messenger and Advocate, Kirtland, Ohio, Dec. 1834, vol.1, no.3
• 1835 Account given by Joseph Smith to Joshua the Jewish minister, Joseph Smith Diary, Nov. 9, 1835.
• 1835 Account given by Joseph Smith to Erastus Holmes on November 14, 1835, originally published in the Deseret News of Saturday May 29, 1852.
• 1838 This account became the official version, now part of Mormon Scripture in the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith -- History, 1:7-20. Though written in 1838, it was not published until 1842 in Times and Season, March 15, 1842, vol. 3, no. 10, pp. 727-728, 748-749, 753.
• 1844 Account in An Original History of the Religious Denominations at Present Existing in the United States, edited by Daniel Rupp. Joseph Smith wrote the chapter on Mormonism.
• 1859 Interview with Martin Harris, Tiffany's Monthly, 1859, New York: Published by Joel Tiffany, vol. v.--12, pp. 163-170.

From: http://www.irr.org/mit/First-Vision-Accounts.html

Elder George,

I know you say you're not a born again. While it's true you don't show signs of their paranoia, you do have their odd wooden way of thinking.

God said "x." No matter how petty "x" is (and, I agree that Joseph should have been obedient), if Joseph doesn't do "x," he's cast off forever. I'm sorry, but I just can't believe in a heavenly martinet.

In my relgion, at least, God is a warm, caring person who is willing to work with my foibles. I can hardly expect him to do less with Joseph Smith.

Anyway, if you go to this site, which lists all the evidence for Joseph Smith having become a Methodist, you'll find that the evidence is tenuous at best: http://www.askgramps.org/why-did-joseph-smith-jr-attempt-in-june-1828-to-join-the/

My guess is that you've been spending too much time reading the works of Wesley Walters. That's not healthy for anyone.

pbbbt! Is this a hangout for Mormon apologists?

Get over yourselves, dudes. You and Mitt are about as relevant as Bhagwanh Shree Rajneesh and the Bhagavad Gita.

lawl!

Elder George,

You people are bit loose with the English language. I'm an obscure person on an obscure site exchanging anonymous e-mails with nobodies. That's hardly the work of a "spin-meister."

You could possibly call me a rationalizer, but I just happen to believe in a tolerant, friendly God. Your efforts to make me believe in a heavenly dictator aren't likely to work.

And what's with the huge list? You people keep posting huge lists as if they mean something. Paul's vision occurs in five versions, some conflicting, but I believe in it. The Christmas stories disagree with each other, but I believe in the birth of Christ; the crucifixtion and resurrection stories conflict, but I believe that Christ was crucified and resurrected.

Heck, read "Scientific American," like I do, and every other month you'll find a new theory on the nature of the universe that conflicts with a number of other theories, but I even believe in the existence of the universe.

Don't be so petty. People tell conflicting stories about real events all the time. They forget, get confused, emphasize or even embellish based on audience. It doesn't mean they aren't referring back to something that actually happened.

No Kelvin,

It's a site that originally posted the ravings of an anti-Mormon lunatic and has since been taken over by people with no life.

There's hundreds of millions of sites out there. If this one doesn't appeal to you, try seeking some variety.

Lacrima: You say I have "an odd wooden way of thinking" yet you believe in:
- A man who has multiple accounts of the first vision
- A man who married women who were already married to other living men
- A man/pedophile who was caught by his wife having sex with a 14 year-old girl
- The Book of Mormon that is a plagerized rip-off of other books that is contradictory to basic science
- Brigham Young, a prophet, who preached hateful racist dogma as doctrine
- A church that didn't allow black males to hold the priesthood until 1978, yes 1978! This was based on being descendents of Cain.
- Excommunicating historians and intellectuals for publishing books on well-documented events in Mormon history. What does the church have to hide?
- The list goes on and on

Now, who has an "odd wooden way of thinking"?

Lacrima: You didn't address the multiple "first vision" accounts. Instead, you attack the messenger. What a big surprise!

Good job Lacrima !! Keep the misleading and blatantly dishonest information at bay.

By the way, Romney's got my vote.

Can we talk about witchcraft now? Although, I have found the discussions entertaining, it's getting a little old.

Folks if anyone is misleading or blatantly dishonest it's Lacrima. Please read the posts and responses from others and you can determine this for yourselves.

Good grief. Lacrima is obviously an extremely insecure person and liar. Mitt Romney is a sucker and a flip-flopping liar as well. I am not voting for a sucker to be my president.

Elder George,

What's to comment? The versions exist. That doesn't mean there was no first vision.

I am usually pretty tolerant but I think I like mormanism less than ever after all of this. Lacrima I can't believe you have any friends. Are you still in that hotel room?

Well, TM, you haven't learned to spell it yet.

The more I listen to the anti-Mormons and read up on the Mormon faith, the more impressed and curious I am. I guess in all the hate you do find some answers. Kind of like a phoenix that rises out of the ashes. I appreciate your comment Lacrima, but it's a shame you have to make them. We live in a country that honors religious freedom.

Seems to me that many religions have good and bad things about them, which anyone could hone in on if so desired.

When I see multiple versions of events, provided by people with a vested interest, I become immediately skeptical.

If we predict the future based on the past, then how can anyone say that Romney is going to consecrate the presidency to his church? Isn't that just nuts?

No one is forced to support any particular candidate, but to attack someone based on innuendo seems outrageous.

But the freedom to say these things is part of what makes this country great. I would think even Mormons appreciate the separation of church and state. For obvious reasons.

Elder George,

Let me get to your next list.

1. multiple versions. You haven't actually pointed out the significance of this. Multiple versions exist of many real events. I actually posted an interesting quote on this somewhere up there. I guess you missed it.

2. polyandry. As Compton points out ("Sacred Loneliness," a book often used by anti-Mormons) Joseph never lived with any of his polyandrous wives. A strange practice, but seemingly asexual.

3. Although Helan Mar Kimball was 14, that was still on the lower edge of an acceptable age at the time. Kentucky until recently allowed 13-year olds to marry (note where the dash goes--your writing skills need work) and I've read of such marriages taking place before the law was changed.

You either like polygamy or you don't. I'm glad it's gone, but I can't get worked up over it. It's interesting that although Joseph Smith had more or less thirty wives, there are only between five and eight known descendants from his plural wives, about the same number he had with Emma, his first wife.

His contemporaries who practiced polygamy on a similar scale all have, literally, tens of thousands of descendants. Joseph Smith has only 800. This suggests he wasn't quite the goat people accuse him of.

Lacrima,

Good to hear you're paying your tithing. My General Authority cousin at the top of this pyramid scheme thanks you. It surely makes his life much more comfortable.

Man I was excited to see this still going this morning. I thought everyone got bored of it. Lacrima, your the first Mormon that has even had a defense to what I would call the "hard" questions. I can't tell you how many times I've asked a mormon why the book of Mormon says we had horses in America before the spanish settlers, and all they can respond is "I just pray about it and I know it's true." Or they tell me, "Faith and Doubt don't have enough room to live together." So I am appreciative of your responses. I encourage people not to bash him so much. He's really trying to answer most of the questions as well as he knows how, and thats VERY VERY rare coming from Mormons. I am not an Evangalist, hardly that. I was born Catholic, moved to the south and became more of just a general christian.

David Koresh and Joseph Smith had much in common. They both lived off the sweat and toil of their parishioners. They both took on multiple sex partners from their congregations and they both sought complete control over their subject's daily lives. Koresh's compound wasn't nearly on the scale of Nauvoo but his plans were every bit as grandiose as Smith's, he just had the misfortune to be born into the 20th Century where most educated folks couldn't quite accept him as easily as they did his 19th Century counterpart and his followers had no wilderness to retreat to to practice their cult.

If a Mormon can claim to be a Christian then can a Christian claim to be a Mormon?

I love to hear Mormons playing the persecution card. "we don't come to your house and belittle your religion..."

Of course tell that to the young men called "Elder" who showed up at my door and proudly claimed Joe Smith spoke with God and God said "all religion were an abomination in his sight".

Mitt should get called on the carpet for his pre 1990 temple oaths.

Roy Dew: "If you were a faithful Elder of the Church you would know what the Church teaches about arguing about Church doctrine." You seem to be implying here that it is somehow wrong to argue. If I am wrong please correct me, if you do think that, please read D & C Section 71, in particular what Jesus says in these verses:
7 Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest.
8 Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord.
9 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you--there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper;
10 And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time.

And for anyone who is arguing about how any Semitic DNA was mingled with a local population, you are apostates who need to read the book of mormon. They could not have assimilated with any asiatic/bering straight peoples. Those people were, as you would know if you read the book of mormon, all killed in the Noachian flood a couple thousand years earier!

The people who did come before the Lehite/Mulekite migrations around 600 bc were the Jaredites. But the last Jaredites all died out and we only know of them because the last one lived with the Mulekites for a year or so before he died.

So stop making these arguments about DNA which are directly contradicted by the book of mormon itself. Please, you make mormons look bad.

Book of Mormon--This statement is just more blather. No Mormon claims the Book of Mormon is "proved" but there is far more evidence in its favor that you seem to be aware of. I've read most of the anti-Mormon stuff out there. You should maybe try reading some Mormon stuff and looking at the other side.

There is nothing there that would convince you, but there is enough that you could maybe understand how intelligent, educated people can still take it seriously.

blacks/priesthood-this statement is simply ahistorical. Joseph Smith ordained blacks and no one is quite sure when or why the ban took place. The most reasonable guess is that it had to do with avoiding persecution as abolitionists, since the Church was very anti-slavery (my wife's ancestors freed their slaves when they joined the Church). The Cain thing was an effort by some members to explain something otherwise inexplicable. There were other explanations as well, but none of them became doctrine. Most members were quite happy when the ban was lifted.

excommunication-the fact that you publish unwelcome history doesn't get you excommunicated. Juanita Brooks is a perfect example. Fawn Brodie was excommunicated because she decided Joseph Smith was not a prophet. I've read the writings of the others for years in magazines like "Sunstone." They were pretty stidently anti-Church. Being out of the Church, by the way, has kept none of them from writing and publishing, and people like me from reading them.

Brigham Young--everybody in the 19th century was a racist by our standards, including Lincoln. I've read a great deal about Young's life and haven't seen anything to suggest he was worse than his contemporaries. He certainly treated the blacks who lived in SLC well. BYU studies recently published a firsthand account of a Polynesian who visited Young and was quite pleased with his reception.

A good part of virtue consists in overcoming your worse beliefs and feelings.

Lacrima: My ancestors settled a small town in Cache Valley with settlers who brought their slaves with them. Did you know that the Utah Territory, with Brigham Young as its leader, was given the choice by congress as to whether to be a free territory or a slave territory? Guess what Brigham chose? To allow slavery. DId you know you could pay your tithing with a slave? Thats right, give the slave to the church instead of however many bushels of wheat you owed. DId you know that Brigham prophesied that the civil war would NOT end slavery?

As Boyd Packer said: "Some things that are true are not very useful" so I think its best not to even bring the subject of mromons and slavery up.

Ok back to the matter at hand. I'm looking up dogmatic as we speak but for the rest of your responses I'd like the opportunity to respond myself.
1. The script and pictures on the papyrus has been heavily researched. Not only has it been Concluded that Joseph Smith's interpretation is completely wrong, they also proved that the drawings Joseph Smith completed were completely incorrect.

Here are some responses from Egyptologist who were given Joseph Smith's translation.

In 1912, the Rt. Reverend Franklin S. Spalding, Episcopal Bishop of Utah, sent copies of the three facsimiles from the Book to world-class Egyptologists and Semitists. Eight responded with uniformly negative appraisals:

the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City: "Joseph Smith's interpretation of these cuts is a farrago of nonsense from beginning to end...five minutes study in an Egyptian gallery of any museum should be enough to convince any educated man of the clumsiness of the imposture."

"...difficult to deal seriously with Smith's impudent fraud."

"Smith has turned the Goddess into a king and Osiris into Abraham."

"...very clearly demonstrates that he (Joseph Smith) was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian Writing and civilization."

"...the attempts to guess a meaning are too absurd to be noticed. It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these explanations."

Brigham Young called slavery a divine institution.

2. There are so many problems with the origins of the book of Mormon and the stories that are in it. Here's some of the info I could find.

Joseph's mother recorded that long before Joseph had received the gold plates he was well aware of the stories contained therein:

"During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would to with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them." (Lucy Smith, Biographical Sketches, p. 85)
Joseph told these stories well before his brother Alvin's death in November, 1823. Yet he never got the plates until September, 1827. Where did all this specific information come from? We have no record of these kinds of details being given to Joseph through his annual interviews with Moroni. Where else but from Joseph's fertile imagination and the source materials to which he had access?

The Indian mounds that dotted western New York were a constant source of speculation during the time Joseph grew up there. It was a common legend that western New York and Ohio had once been the site of a terrible slaughter and that the mounds were the cemeteries of an entire race. In 1821, a Palmyra newspaper stated that diggers on the Erie Canal had unearthed "several brass plates" along with skeletons and fragments of pottery. (Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History, pp. 35-36)

That Native Americans descended from the Hebrews was a popular theory at the time Joseph lived. America's most distinguished preachers - William Penn, Roger Williams, Cotton Mather, Jonathan Edwards - had all espoused the theory. A Jewish rabbi, M. M. Noah, summarized the parallels between the cultures of Hebraic and Indian customs in Joseph's hometown paper on October 11, 1825. Joseph unquestionably had access to the Wayne Sentinel, for on August 11, 1826 his father was listed among the delinquent subscribers as owing $5.60. (Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 45-46)

Ethan Smith was a minister of a Congregational Church in Poultney, Vermont from 1821 to 1826 when he wrote View of the Hebrews. It was first published in 1823 (the Book of Mormon was published 6 years later in 1829). Interestingly, Oliver Cowdery, scribe, and later witness of the Book of Mormon, lived in Poultney for 22 years until 1825. Cowdery's stepmother and three of his sisters were members of Ethan Smith's congregation. No direct evidence exists that would prove or disprove Joseph Smith had read View of the Hebrews. Another book, The Wonders of Nature and Providence Displayed, was in the local Manchester Library (five miles from Joseph Smith's home) and extant records show that it was reportedly checked out during the years 1826 to 1828. This book includes a long selection from Ethan Smith's book and attempts to establish a Hebrew origin for Native Americans.

Ethan Smith's theory of the origin of the Indian mounds was exactly the same as that which formed the heart of the Book of Mormon story:

3. Much of the archaeology of the bible is wrong? I'd love to know examples? Most of the bible is consistent with people places animals food. You can prove civilizations existed that are concurrent with the Bible. This is probably one of the strongest arguments against Joseph Smith so I understand why you are dismissing it so easily. It's a lot like those old Wendy's commercials. "Where's the Beef." The book talks about wars, civilizations, millions of people. None of which we have any hard evidence for. We have seem to uncover remains of every civilization that has inhabited this planet. Rome, Athens, Ruins in Mexico, Peru the list goes on and on but no sign of Lamanites or Neophites.

"The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book." ("Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon," Smithsonian Institution, Spring 1986)

According to the Book of Mormon, at least 230,000 men died in battle at the Hill Cumorah. Also, this battle was about 1/10 the size of the battle which took place at the same location approximately 1,000 years earlier when, according to Ether 15:2 "nearly two millions" of the Jaredites had their last great battle.

However, there is literally not a trace of archaeological evidence to support the claim that so many men died in battle at the tiny hill now owned by the LDS Church in the State of New York called Cumorah.

Book of Mormon Metallurgy

Among the most significant cultural anachronisms in the Book of Mormon is the depiction of Nephite civilization as having iron and other metal industries; we read of metal swords and breastplates, gold and silver coinage, and even machinery (2 Nephi 5:15; Jarom 1:8; Mosiah 11:3,8; Ether 7:9;10:23). However, there is no evidence that any New World civilization attained any such industry during Book of Mormon times (600 B. C. - 421 A. D.).

As former Brigham Young University anthropology professor, Dr. Raymond T. Matheny, points out:

"The tools that the people [in cultures that did have metallurgical industries] used are primitive but nonetheless they are there, and they spell out a system of exploitation of those natural resources. In refining ores and then bringing these to casting and true metallurgical processes is another bit of technology that leaves a lot of evidence. You can't refine ore without leaving a bloom of some kind or...that is, impurities that blossom out and float to the top of the ore...Also blooms off into silicas and indestructible new rock forms. In other words, when you have a ferrous metallurgical industry, you have these evidences of the detritus that is left over. You also have the fuels, you have the furnaces, you have whatever technologies that were performing these tasks, they leave solid evidences. And they are indestructible things...non-ferrous metallurgical industries have similar evidences. No evidence has been found in the new world for a ferrous metallurgical industry dating to pre-Columbian times. And so this is a king-size problem, it seems to me, for so-called Book of Mormon archaeology. The evidence is absent." (Michael Coe, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 8, No. 2, Summer 1973, p. 23).

Book of Mormon Crops

The Book of Mormon indicates that the Nephites produced various crops including barley (Mosiah 7:22, 9:9; Alma 11:7, 15), figs (3 Nephi 14:16), grapes (2 Nephi 15:2, 4; 3 Nephi 14:16), and wheat (Mosiah 9:9, 3 Nephi 18:18). However, there has been no archeological evidence for any of these crops. Archeology does indicate the peoples of the region ate maize (corn), lima beans, tomatoes, squash, and amaranth, but none of these crops are mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Thomas Ferguson, archaeologist, noted defender of the Book of Mormon, and founder of the New World Archaeological Foundation at BYU stated:

"I participated in excavating a trench at the edge of the Grijalva river in which we found a ceramic vessel in a stratum dating to about 200 BC... Art portrayals in ceramics, murals, and sculptured works--of ancient plant life--are fairly commonplace. Thousands of archeological holes in the area proposed have given us not a fragment of evidence of the presence of the plants mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The holes include the great one dug by Edwin Shook at Tehuacan, Puebla, Mexico. He excavated a cave -- going back to 5000 BC., finding most of the major plants of the area. But no wheat, barley, figs or grapes."
Book of Mormon Animals

Similarly, the Book of Mormon describes various domesticated animals: asses, cows, goats, sheep, horses, oxen, swine, and elephants. However, Pre-Columbian evidence for such animals in Mesoamerica is scant, at best. There is no evidence of horses in Central and North America before the Spaniards arrived (hundreds of years after the Book of Mormon). Why then does the Book of Mormon refer to horses where there were none?

Dr. John L. Sorenson proposed that the Nephites were really referring to either a species of deer or tapir, but since they did not have names for these animals, they called them horses. This seems a weak response, but even if it were true it doesn't account for the many other animals and crops for which there is absolutely no archeological evidence.

Again from Thomas Ferguson:

"Evidence of the foregoing animals has not appeared in any form -- ceramic representations, bones or skeletal remains, mural art, sculptured art or any other form. However... evidence has been found in several forms of the presence in the Book-of-Mormon times of other animals--deer, jaguars, dogs, turkeys etc. The zero score presents a problem that will not go away with the ignoring of it. Non-LDS scholars of first magnitude, some who want to be our friends, think we have real trouble here. That evidence of the ancient existence of these animals is not elusive is found in the fact that proof of their existence in the ancient old-world is abundant. The absence of such evidence...is distressing and significant, in my view." (Tom Ferguson, Written Symposium on Book-of-Mormon Geography, 1978).

4. Joseph Smith couldn't even prophesize his successor in his own church. He called for his son to become the next church prophet, that is until he died and Brigham Young decided he would be the next prophet:

Despite claims by the LDS church to the contrary, the evidence is strong that Joseph blessed his eldest son, Joseph, and promised him succession as the church's next prophet. In the winter of 1843, during a sermon to his people in the grove next to the Nauvoo temple, Joseph called his son to the stand beside him and declared:

"I have often been asked who would succeed me as the prophet to the church. My son Joseph will be your next prophet."

The reason that most Mormons don't have answers to the "hard" questions is that most of them don't really care about those questions. And why should they? Faith isn't based on rationality. Ask any "Christian" where Christ's body went after he ascended to heaven. (I've never been able to find one who can tell me that.) Ask any Hindu how he can believe that God really takes the form of an elephant. Ask any Buddhist how it's possible to be born into another body and not be the same person. No one who truly has faith in their own religion, whether they are Muslim, Hindu, Christian or Scientologist, does so because they have "thought" about it. They believe because it appeals to their spiritual nature somehow. How can a rational human being believe in a man being killed on a cross, thrust through the side with a spear, buried in a tomb with a large stone across the door who then appears alive again, whole and well and even superhuman? Rationality and religion don't mix. But that is the whole point, isn't it? Our souls yearn for the miraculous, that which goes beyond this horrible material world we live in. So leave us Mormons to believe what we believe. We will do the same for you. As long as we're not going around killing people in the name of our faith, what harm does that do? We might try to convert you to our view, just as you might try to convert us to yours, but trying to "prove" or "disprove" any religion is paradoxical. And no one has ever been convinced of religious truth by argument. Only the Spirit can perform that miracle. So have your intellectual fun, but remember that it's only an exercise. Nobody who discusses religious questions is ever going to change their views as a result of this sort of mental gymnastics and rhetoric.

Lacrima,

I am proud of you for taking your first steps toward finding out the truth by engaging with others who do not believe in what you believe. A few years from now you too will probably helping others learn the truth about their religion. It is a hard path to take but the end results are worth it. Good luck to you!

Does anyone notice a trend here...the State of Utah, founded and populated by Mormons, has the highest bankruptcy rate in the nation, leads the nation in multi-level marketing (pyramid schemes) companies, has the highest per capita consumption of anti depressant medications and is known as the scam capital of the country. Barron's Magazine did a great article titled "Snookered in Salt Lake City" which detailed a mini-Enron scheme that some of the Mormon brethren started. The article detailed how a major West Coast energy company was defrauded of 76 million dollars by these devout, squeeky clean Mormon boys. When federal bankruptcy officials sought to recoup the monies these crooks "tithed" into the church before their pending indictments, Senator Orrin Hatch (a Mormon in good standing) successfully squelched that with legislation prohibiting the feds from seeking redress from church coffers rife with ill gotten gains.

Do we as voters not have the right, indeed, the obligation to delve into such matters? Should we not be concerned that Mitt might feel the urge to do to the country what his fellow Mormons have done to Utah?

Tell me that a Mormon would ever vote for a Jewish candidate or a Jehovah Witness candidate. I would not vote for Mitt Romney because he is Mormon. If that makes me narrow minded then so be it. I know too much about the religion to be comfortable with a Mormon in office.

5. It's a commandment, no Gods, just one. It's a nice thought that we can become dieties but seriously?!? Multiple gods is for Greek Mythology. You can't be christian and believe in Millions of Gods ruling there own world. We have one omnipresent God. Thats it, end of story.

I would vote for a Jew or a Jehovah's Witness or any candidate whose political views were in line with my own political ideals. What does religion have to do with it? If you would not be comfortable with a Mormon because you "know too much about the religion", that indicates to me that you know too little about the religion. I know a lot about Protestant Christianity that disturbs me, but that doesn't prevent me from voting for Protestants. I don't expect that their religious views really have much to do with their politics. If they did for Mormons, then we wouldn't have both Democratic and Republican Mormons in Congress.

6. Here's some real info on your kinderhook plates.

For nearly 140 years, the LDS church defended Joseph's partial translation of the Kinderhook plates (in fact there are several pages dedicated to the story of the Kinderhook plates in the 7-volume History of the Church) but as soon as they discovered beyond any reasonable doubt that the Kinderhook plates were fake, they tried to distance themselves from the whole situation by claiming "...there is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever concluded the plates were genuine..."(Ensign , August 1981, pp. 66-70). Apparently a partial translation of them as recorded by Joseph's personal secretary and witnessed by several Mormon Elders was plenty of evidence for the nearly 140 years in which the LDS church defended Joseph's translation of the plates.

Apologists claim that Joseph was not fooled and had no intention of translating the plates. However, if he had not been murdered in June 1844, it is very possible that he would have published a complete "translation" of these bogus plates. Just a month before his death it was reported that he was "busy in translating them. The new work...will be nothing more nor less than a sequel to The Book of Mormon..." (Warsaw Signal, May 22, 1844) The fact that Joseph was actually preparing to print a translation of the plates is verified by a broadside published by the Mormon newspaper, The Nauvoo Neighbor, in June 1843. On this broadside, containing facsimiles of the plates, we find the following:

"The contents of the Plates, together with a Fac-Simile of the same, will be published in the Times and Seasons, as soon as the translation is completed."
In a letter dated April 8, 1878, Wilbur Fugate recalled:

"We understood Jo Smith said [the plates] would make a book of 1200 pages but he would not agree to translate them until they were sent to the Antiquarian society at Philadelphia, France, and England."

Honestly, Gerry, Mormons really aren't "Christians." We don't believe in the Christ promulgated by the Nicene Creed. We believe in the Christ of the New Testament, the true Christ, the one who was resurrected and stayed resurrected, who differentiated himself from the Father and the Holy Ghost, who calls himself the Son, who was the Savior of all humanity and not just "Christians," who didn't condemn people to hell, who loved everyone, regardless of whether they were "Christian" or not.

7. My boy Elder George Carlin already took care of that one.

8. LOL, I'm sure that Joseph like Methodists and didn't mind hanging out with them outside church, but.... If God himself appeared before me and told me that I needed to eat earthworms and roaches to reach salvation I'm pretty sure I'd obey. Abraham almost sacrificed his son!!!!! Joseph Smith couldn't go eight years without joining a church like God instructed. What resolve your prophet has!

I've thoroughly enjoyed these discussions and have spent a day and a half (!) reading the materials at the internet sites. Holy Moroni, Batman. Are you all sure the LDS haven't transposed the D and the S in their name?

Get this. They've baptized Hitler and then they baptized his Holocaust victims. And I wasn't ever going to vote for Romney anyway, but I'm now seriously concerned that there is any possibility of his getting elected. I can't remember the woman's name, but I read a speech given by the highest ranking Mormon woman which she gave just a few months ago. This broad makes June Clever look like a bra-burning liberal. I think I'm now more than slightly concerned with a Mormon being in charge of EEOC and the Civil Rights Commission.

This whole Mormonism thing is like not being able to look away from an accident. Creepy and sickening and fascinating. (And I'm never going to be able to look at this guy I know at work who's a Mormon again without blushing! Really. That Temple thing they do is right down kinky.)

9. Here's a little clarification. The book of Mormon was supposedly a perfect translation from the Golden plates. Why have there been so many major changes from the first edition if it was so perfect? So much so as of this year they changed the wording on the ancestry of the American Indians.

There have been at least 3,913 changes made in the Book of Mormon from the time it was first published in 1830.

Here they are, and we are not talking typographical errors.

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/3913intro.htm

Bro,

I wasn't aware of the slavery in Utah thing. If you have a citation (my ancestors also settled in Cache) I'd love to read the article or book. That doesn't change the fact, however, that the earliest Mormons were accused of abolitionism.

Gerry,

As I've said before, I'm willing to leave the Book of Abraham as an open question (although I believe it, myself). For you, however, to call it a fraud based on Spaldings 1912 evidence is just silly. Egyptology and the arguments have advanced a great deal since then. It's like you're trying to use two sticks and a hollow log to communicate with a radio. Get with the times and then make a serious argument. They're out there to be made.

For the four years before Joseph Smith received the plates, he received an annual visit from Moroni, which accounts for Joseph Smith's stories. We don't by the way know any of what Moroni told Joseph. Keep in mind also that Lucy Smith wrote the book as an old woman and is not too accurate on her dates.

I'm not sure what sources you're using, but, again, you're out of date. Even the born agains have gone beyond the Ethan Smith stuff, and it's really hard to put an idea into their heads ("The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind").

Yes, many people thought the Indians were descended from Hebrews and, yes, there were mounds in the area where Joseph grew up. There are, however, no mounds in the BoM, not even the word.

But that's not really the point. If Joseph Smith had written the BoM as a novel, it would have been proven false within a few decades. I'll give you an example:

In the 1700's a Scottish poet and scholar "discovered" and translated an ancient manuscript which he published as "Ossian." It was wildly popular for a long time (Napolean loved it, musicians composed music about it--Fingal's Cave), but it was soon proven semi-fake, because it just didn't "fit," despite the fact that McPherson used real Scottish ballads in writing it. (go here for a short summary http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/myths_legends/scotland/highland/article_1.shtml).

McPherson was a serious intellectual who knew what he was doing and used authentic materials in his work and still got caught. If Joseph wrote the BoM himself it would be painfully and obviously fraudulent.

But the BoM fits its supposed milieu in many ways. In fact, the old world portion is surprisingly well established at this point. There are name studies, word studies, structural studies, word print studies, and so on that suggest, without proving, that the BoM is real. And the evidence is getting better, not worse.

None of it's proof, but the argument today is vastly different than that old 19th century stuff you're playing with. Get up to date and the argue some more.

Dear Fairfax, Don't look now, but your narrowmindedness is showing.

Gerry,

Everyone is aware of the changes. The people who publish those lists are using materials published by BYU. The changes are not significant, but anyone is free to use the 1830 edition, which the Church still publishes.

Gerry, Also check your sources. The latest change you refer to is a change to the indroduction, not part of the original texts. Introductions can be changed without cheating.

Lacrima,

You say evidence is getting better, not worse for proving authenticity of your Book of Mormon. Why then, in light of recent DNA discoveries, have your leaders found it necessary to change the Intro from principal ancestors to among the ancestors? Wouldn't that suggest evidence for it's authenticity is lacking?

Um, no it wouldn't. The change to the intro reflects what most educated Mormons have believed for most of my adult life.

I've posted on the DNA before, including articles by geneticists. Sutherton's DNA evidence is not nearly as damning as you seem to think. In fact, after reading a bit more on the net, it turns out the the genetic stock of American Indians is more complex than anyone thought, although there is still no evidence of Semitic DNA.

Lacrima,

Tossing off legitimate scientific proof seems to be part and parcel of your religion. I'll bet you make your parents proud.

10. This one's a biggie because I think it is what excludes mormon's from being considered christians. Pay attention "Another Mormon with Answers"

The reason Mormonism is not Christian is because it denies one or more of the essential doctrines of Christianity. Of the essential doctrines (that there is only one God, Jesus is God in flesh, forgiveness of sins is by grace alone, and Jesus rose from the dead physically, the gospel being the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus), Mormonism denies three of them: how many gods there are, the person of Jesus, and His work of salvation.

Mormon Jesus (MJ) Vs. Christian Jesus (CJ).
MJ- Common (one of many gods) and, in some ways, of minor important in the largerMormon cosmology.
CJ-Unique (the Second Person of the one and only Godhead) and of supreme importance through time, eternity and all creation

MJ-Conceived by a physical sex act between God the Father (Adam or Elohim) and Mary, thus not through a true virgin birth
CJ-Conceived by the Holy Spirit, who supermaturally "overshadowed" Mary, thus a true virgin birth

MJ-Once sinful and imperfect
CJ-Eternally sinless and perfect

MJ-Earned his own salvation (exaltation, godhood)
CJ-As God, never required salvation

MJ-A married polygamist?
CJ-An unmarried monogamist

So because your idea of "Christ" is different than mainstream Christians, you can't be included.

The Bible talks about false prophets writing false books. Open your eyes people. Blatent Fraud.
Here is a summary of some weird beliefs of Mormon's from exmormon.org

God was once a man like us.

God has a tangible body of flesh and bone.

God lives on a planet near the star Kolob.

God ("Heavenly Father") has at least one wife, our "Mother in Heaven," but she is so holy that we are not to discuss her nor pray to her.

Jesus was married.

We can become like God and rule over our own universe.

There are many gods, ruling over their own worlds.

Jesus and Satan ("Lucifer") are brothers, and they are our brothers - we are all spirit children of Heavenly Father

Jesus Christ was conceived by God the Father by having sex with Mary, who was temporarily his wife.

We should not pray to Jesus, nor try to feel a personal relationship with him.

The "Lord" ("Jehovah") in the Old Testament is the being named Jesus in the New Testament, but different from "God the Father" ("Elohim").

In the highest degree of the celestial kingdom some men will have more than one wife.

Before coming to this earth we lived as spirits in a "pre-existence", during which we were tested; our position in this life (whether born to Mormons or savages, or in America or Africa) is our reward or punishment for our obedience in that life.

Dark skin is a curse from God, the result of our sin, or the sin of our ancestors. If sufficiently righteous, a dark-skinned person will become light-skinned.

The Garden of Eden was in Missouri. All humanity before the Great Flood lived in the western hemisphere. The Ark transported Noah and the other survivors to the eastern hemisphere.

Christ will not return to earth in any
year that has seen a rainbow.

Mormons should avoid traveling on water, since Satan rules the waters.

The sun receives its light from the star Kolob.

If a Gentile becomes Mormon, the Holy Ghost actually purges his Gentile blood and replaces it with Israelite blood.

A righteous Mormon will actually see the face of God in the Mormon temple.

You can identify a false angel by the color of his hair, or by offering to shake his hand.

Meso,

I'm beginning to think you're a real idiot. I never said Sutherton's DNA paper was wrong. I said it doesn't make the point you think it makes, and I gave you some articles from other geneticists to show that.

Some of your other postings also suggest you're a bit dim.

Gerry is a bit our of date and a little too dependant on laundry lists, but at least he seems to have a three-digit IQ.

Lacrima: (or should I just call you cousin, suince if you have ancestors who settled cache valley its highly unlikely that we are not related ;-) )

The Cache Valley mormon slaveholders I read about in a book my mom has called "Windows of wellsville" or something like that. Its a history of Wellsville and the surrounding towns, with tons of first party journal and newspaper acounts, I highly recommend it. (written by the local historical society I think) If you are a Bankhead you are related to them.

I dont recall where I learned all about Slavery in Utah in general, so I just googled slavery in Utah and found these references for you:

Ronald G. Coleman, "Blacks in Utah History: An Unknown Legacy," in The Peoples of Utah, ed. Helen Z. Papanikolas (Salt Lake City: Utah State Historical Society, 1976); Dennis L. Lythgoe, "Negro Slavery in Utah," Utah Historical Quarterly 39 (1971); Lynn R. Bailey, Indian Slave Trade in the Southwest (Los Angeles: Westernlore Press, 1966); Carling and A. Arline Malouf, "The Effects of Spanish Slavery on the Indians of the Intermountain West," Southwestern Journal of Anthropology l (Autumn 1945)

As for early mormons being accused of abolitionism, it is true that Smith ran a presidential campain promising to use tax dollars to buy the slaves from their masters and ship them all back to africa. But I don't see that as being anything to be particularly proud of.

More to the point, Utah momrons were never accused of being abolitionists, although the Missouri mormons who eventually became the RLDS may have been, they never had a black preisthood ban, I do know that.

Gerry, you do love a laundry list, but I get frustrated because I can see by your most recent posting you've read absolutely nothing I've suggested.

Belief in salvation leading to godhood is not unique to Mormons. Orthodox Christians believe it, Luther believed it, the early Church Fathers believed it. Many Christians would find you a heretic for not believing it. Please, go read something before you get back to this point. I just accused you of having a three-digit IQ. Don't make me look bad.

Let me get this straight. I'm "narrow minded" because I'm shocked that Mormons baptized Hitler AND his victims? Or is it because that n*ked blessing and that five-point hug and the cutting of throats and calling Protestant ministers servants of the devil is kinky?

Wait till you hear what else I'm narrow-minded about. God had actual, get down dirty sex with the Virgin Mary?! A Mormon woman is instructed to marry early, have ooodles of kids, work as an unpaid babysitter for the church, obey her husband explicity and her reward? Her husband may (or may not) call her through the veil, but even if he does, she gets to stay pregnant for eternity while he collects trophy wives. Now that's a destiny I'd look forward to. No wonder Utah takes more Prozac than any other state in the US.

I also read about Utah being the first in bankruptcy. That, coupled with Orin Hatch's bill to exempt Mormon tithing from the bankruptcy laws (and he got it passed with the help of his good friend, the Mormon Democrat Majority Leader, Reid) sounds a bit like Mormon collusion to me. I did the figures and one begins to understand why the Mormon church would be so concerned. The median income in Utah is around $58,000. Let's say the average parish has 300 families which earn the median income. That would be $1,740,000 from ONE parish. And I read somewhere that the church spends less than 3% of its billions on charity and there was this one prophet (Faust) who bragged about buying the gold teeth of the poor members in South America so they could build a Temple there. Yessiree! I was about as narrow minded as I could get when I read that one.

There's been a lot written about how the church controls Utah politicians and its courts and that's pretty serious. The governor of Utah even prevented the autopsy demanded by law of the Mountain Meadow victims at the church's behest.

I also read about a study done by a BYU professor about how rape and child sex abuse victims are treated by the community and the law, and I'm beyond shocked. Victims were chided by the leaders of the church for bringing on their own rape! And the study was suppressed by the church and the professor disciplined.

I also read numerous accounts of the Mormon "reeducation" program for gays, where the gay man would have electrodes attached to his genitiles and then be shown gay porn movies. An electric shock would be administered if the obvious result occured. You think I'm narrow-minded because I find this beyond disgusting? No wonder Romney won't come out against torture.

But the Mormon founders have made some of the worst racial slurs I've ever read and make Bull Connor look like a giggling school girl. Get this: "At the time the devil was cast out of heaven, there were some spirits that did not know who had authority, whether God or the devil. They consequently did not take a very active part on either side, but rather thought the devil had been abused, . . . These spirits were not considered bad enough to be cast down to hell, and never have bodies; neither were they considered worthy of an honourable body on this earth: . . . But those spirits in heaven that rather lent an influence to the devil, thinking he had a little the best right to govern, but did not take a very active part any way were required to come into the world and take bodies in the accursed lineage of Canaan; and hence the Negro or African race (Speech of Elder Orson Hyde, delivered before the High Priests' Quorum, in Nauvoo, April 27, 1845, printed by John Taylor, p. 30).

And this:

"After the Mormons moved west, Brigham Young, the second president of the church, became very adamant in his disapproval of blacks. Preaching in 1859, at the October Conference of the LDS Church, President Brigham Young declared:

Cain slew his brother . . . and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. . . . How long is that race [blacks] to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 290).

On another occasion Brigham Young declared:

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110).

Preaching in 1882, John Taylor, the third president of the LDS Church, taught:

Why is it, in fact, that we should have a devil? Why did not the Lord kill him long ago? . . . He needed the devil and great many of those who do his bidding just to keep . . . our dependence upon God, . . . When he destroyed the inhabitants of the antediluvian world, he suffered a descendant of Cain to come through the flood in order that he [the devil] might be properly represented upon the earth (Journal of Discourses, vol. 23, p. 336)."

So yes, I'm very, very narrow-minded when it comes to male domination, abusive sexism and racism. Wasn't it your Dalin Oaks who declared on Public Television that there's no room in Mormonism for "feminists, gays or intellectuals." I think we can all agree that you Mormons have proven you're members in good standing under Mr. Oak's proscription.

Lacrima,
You have to believe the book of Abraham. A false interpretation by Joseph Smith undermines your whole religion. It has been proven to be false beyond any doubt. They have gotten pretty good at reading hyrogliphics. You have to create room for error to maintain your belief system. That goes for every aspect of your cross examination. If anyone of those points are false your whole religion is false.
So here