Political Insider

By Wendy73

December 4, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this

Superb article. Thank you for this piece. It is truthful and fair and thus refreshing.

By Debrar

December 4, 2007 3:32 PM | Link to this

I think Mitt Romney deserves a ton of respect. To demand a person to be approved due to their religion, or to not believe what he says, or to say you better talk - - then you better not talk, and to say that God will not hear his prayers.

Arrogant, hypocrites!

Huckabee is running as the Southern Baptist preacher — where’s the outrage?

Not everyone is of his faith, and we do have separation of church and state in the Constitution.

Ironically, the Baptists were the minority who were being protected at the time this 1st Amendment was added. Go look it up.

By Tim Kelley

December 4, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this

Jesus does not leave people with alot of options….you can have only one of 3 conclusions about Him as CS Lewis stated…Either He is LORD, Liar, or Lunatic…His claims leave you with NO other options. If Mormons believe he is LORD to be worshipped as such then Fine…they ARE Christians…otherwise they put Joseph smith on the same level and this is unacceptable to Historic Christianity.

For an excellent Documentary go to “DNA & the Book of Mormon”you tube -these are Mormon scientist grappling with the lack of archelogical, linguistic, historical evidence for any of the events that took place in the Book of Mormon. Also along the same lines: “The Bible and the Book of Mormon” compares the archelogical, linguistic, historical references in each one and how they match up with the evidence.

Either way neither religion will threaten to kill you if you named your Teddy Bear Jesus or Joseph Smith.

By MormonCentury.org

December 4, 2007 3:39 PM | Link to this

In the past month, two books have been published by Christian houses, each discussing long-time dialogues on-going between Evangelical pastors and a Mormon scholar. “Bridging the Divide” by Rev. Gregory C. V. Johnson, an ordained Baptist pastor, and “Claiming Christ” by Gerald R. McDermott, a professor of religion and philosophy at Roanoke College and teaching pastor at St. John Lutheran Church, each explore Mormon doctrine and practice from the position of faithful Evangelical Christianity. This statement about Mormonism is typical of the concessions made by these two religious leaders:

pp. 63-64 (in “Claiming Christ”), “Many evangelicals are surprised to learn, for example, that Mormons believe not only that Jesus is the Son of God but also that he is God the Son. I find that many evangelicals have somewhere picked up the idea that Mormons deny the deity of Jesus Christ. They are often amazed to learn that, unlike Jehovah’s Witnesses and other groups they typically classify as ‘cults,’ which do indeed deny the deity of Christ, Mormons declare emphatically that Jesus was and is incarnate God. … I have to say that evangelical agreement with [Mormons] on Jesus is significant and, when compared to a history of evangelical denunciations of Mormonism, remarkable.”

Again, that statement is from Dr. Gerald R. McDermott, a non-Mormon. Many, many similar statements – across numerous doctrinal areas – could be (and have been) made about a Mormonism that is far less threatening and strange than some Christians have been led to believe.

The problem with some vocal Evangelicals and Fundamentalists is that they have invincible convictions about Mormons that simply are not true. When honest pastors examine the issues in depth, they remain Evangelical (usually) – while urging their fellow Orthodox Christians to stop misrepresenting Mormons and Mormon belief and practice.

As an active Latter-day Saint, I find it unfortunate that Mitt Romney is somehow responsible, for purposes of the election, to try and sufficiently “normalize” Mormons for other Christians. This needless bigotry serves only to divide believers at a time when increasingly-aggressive secularists and atheists relish any opportunity to turn anti-faith arguments against Evangelicals and other believers.

As they have for many years, Mormons and other Christians have no reason not to work together on all political issues, at any level, including the presidential.

By brock

December 4, 2007 3:48 PM | Link to this

There’s no way around the hypocritical reality that will ensue if evangelicals turn their back on Romney. He’s as aligned with them as anyone else, and some would argue even more so than Baptist minister Huckabee given his ethics questions in Arkansas, pro-amnesty-Lite stance on illegal immigration, and his tax-and-spend record as Governor that resulted in a tax hike higher than Arkansas saw under Bill Clinton.

I target Huckabee since he’s the only threat for Mitt in the first state, Iowa. Huckabee can’t compete many other places, and there is no way he could win the nomination. But he can serve as a blocking fullback for Rudy, who is farther away from evangelical values than either Mitt or Mike are. So, for anyone who can compute simple math, a Huckabee vote is a proxy Rudy vote just as an H Ross Perot vote was a proxy Bill Clinton vote, resulting in the loss of the WH to the Democrat.

I doubt Huckabee can, in the end, win Iowa. If he does, that might give Rudy some chance in New Hampshire, but a victory for him there is a longshot even if Mitt loses Iowa. Odds are Huckabee is just riding his 15 minutes of fame as Fred Thompson already has, and Mitt wins Iowa and dominates in NH. Even though if Mitt were to lose Iowa, the odds that he wins the nomination are very high if he wins NH since history has dictated that no republican has ever won the primary without winning either Iowa or New Hampshire.

On top of that is the fact that no Republican has won both Iowa and NH before. So if Mitt manages to maintain his leads in both states and win them, will media talk about how strong his candidacy must be in spite of his religion?

By Debrar

December 4, 2007 3:51 PM | Link to this

Wow Tim Kelley

Christians aren’t supposed to lie and mislead. I am a “Mormon” (a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) - which is ALSO A CHRISTIAN - and I see through your crap.

By captbilly

December 4, 2007 4:13 PM | Link to this

This discussion is terrifying to me. Are we really so willing to give up our notions of separation of church and state? I don’t want to hear another candidate bring up God or faith, ever, it should have no place in politics at all. I might be ok hearing a candidate say that his personal religious beliefs are irrelevent, because they have no place in our government.

I suppose that if someone was brought up with certain religious traditions then he/she can still be considered sane when they go to church and celebrate religious holidays. On the other hand, someone saying that they actually literally believe in the stories in the bible, quran, etc., we have to question their sanity or honesty.

Take someone like Bush. He says that he is a christian and he reads and believes the bible. I spent years in religious instruction when I was a child, and any child knows that Bush is not acting the way the bible or jesus have taught. So we can assume that Bush is either a liar or stupid and delusional or both. If we elect another president claiming to be following the teachings of the bible and christ, shouldn’t we expect that this new guy will also be either lying or delusional?

You can’t do what the president of the US needs to do, and simultainiously follow the teachings of the bible. You also can’t have the kind of rational, considered and stable thinker that we should demand of someone with as much power as the president of the US, inside of someone who claims to literally believe in the stories in the bible.

By Marv Swett

December 4, 2007 4:26 PM | Link to this

@MormonCentury.org

You said “This needless bigotry serves only to divide believers at a time when increasingly-aggressive secularists and atheists relish any opportunity to turn anti-faith arguments against Evangelicals and other believers.”

What hogwash! To blame all ecumenical strife on secularists and atheists is the height of deceit. As someone who doesn’t believe in the supernatural, I could care less about your petty disputes. As a scientist, however, I find religion enormously interesting.

For millennia humans have been searching for the unique characteristic that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. For centuries we labored under the misguided notion that we were the only animal that mastered the use of tools. Then we took a closer look and found out that not only did other animals use tools, but they have complex communication patterns and social arrangements. Our special place in the cosmos seemed displaced.

Yet religious observance is, so far as we can observe, is the only truly unique trait we can ascribe to ourselves. It is for many of the human race what guides us, consoles us, provides us with strength and spiritual nourishment, and for some of us, defines who we are.

As someone who doesn’t believe in any spirituality, I don’t have any stake in sectarian disputes.

By Wackolibhack

December 4, 2007 4:30 PM | Link to this

It is Bush’s fault that religion is in our government. Before Bush there was no mention of God ever, anywhere, period. Bush slipped all that god stuff into the writings of our founders. I hate Bush.

By Mittster not Huckster

December 4, 2007 5:11 PM | Link to this

Great article. The fact is that the Huckster is not electable. Moderates will not vote for him and as Bill Clinton demonstrated, the moderate center rule the day. Most Americans feel that we have had enough from the “Evagelical” South in the form of both Bush and Bubba. Let’s just see who really votes based on qualifications and issues as opposed to whether somone is “Christian” enough.

By Mittster not Huckster

December 4, 2007 5:11 PM | Link to this

Great article. The fact is that the Huckster is not electable. Moderates will not vote for him and as Bill Clinton demonstrated, the moderate center will rule the day. Most Americans feel that we have had enough from the “Evagelical” South in the form of both Bush and Bubba. Let’s just see who really votes based on qualifications and issues as opposed to whether somone is “Christian” enough.

By Mittster not Huckster

December 4, 2007 5:11 PM | Link to this

Great article. The fact is that the Huckster is not electable. Moderates will not vote for him and as Bill Clinton demonstrated, the moderate center will rule the day. Most Americans feel that we have had enough from the “Evagelical” South in the form of both Bush and Bubba. Let’s just see who really votes based on qualifications and issues as opposed to whether somone is “Christian” enough.

By CraigL

December 4, 2007 5:27 PM | Link to this

Thank you for the open and informative article. I enjoyed reading of the conversation with Demoss and getting the full script of his words—not just a fragment. Like Demoss I think Romney would make a great president and feel he would seek to be a uniter of people of all faiths and uphold the laws and values that this country was founded on.

By Andrew Price

December 4, 2007 5:50 PM | Link to this

Since Mitt Romney is making a speech on his faith and since he claims to be a Christian and all are agreed that Jesus Christ is at the centre of the Christian faith - can he please tell the world that as a Mormon he believes that Jesus is the Devil’s brother produced by a relationship between God the Father and one of his plural wives on a planet near a star called Kolob .

All we are asking of Romney is for him to be open and transparant - if the American people are kept ignorant , then they cannot make informed choices. Romney must understand that many people not just Christians find the view that Jesus is the Devil’s brother both offensive and hurtful . An open statement on what he thinks about Jesus whilst not removing the horror of it at least is honest - a quality Mitt Romney has singularly lacked hitherto .

By Debrar

December 4, 2007 6:09 PM | Link to this

Andrew Price is anti Mormon and is from England where he has a court order to stay away from harrassing Mormon missionaries.

By JB

December 4, 2007 6:14 PM | Link to this

Here is the problem that is being glossed over. The Jesus of Mormonism is not the same Jesus as presented in the Bible. The Mormons believe Jesus is a god, one of many gods. They believe Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer,that is the devil himself, Satan. The Bible teaches that there is only ONE GOD. Jesus himself said “If you do not believe I am the one I claim to be, you will die in your sins”. The correct identity of Jesus Christ is the issue at hand. The bible warns through the apostle Paul that a different Jesus and a different Gospel are not to be accepted. In fact Paul says of teachers of this false gospel,”let them be eternally condemed”. This is not a small matter. Jesus’s own statement regarding belief in his true identity, is the most sobering statement in all of scripture. If you have any other Jesus or gospel message other than the true one, you are on a path of eternal destruction. Jesus himself said it. It is not open to any opnions of men. Take is seriously. I care less about the politics, I will vote my conscience. But my issue is with what is accepted as “Christianity”. Mormonism is not Christianity. It is a religion, based on error. There is ONE GOD. FATHER, SON & SPIRIT. Not many gods. Just as ONE EGG has a shell, yolk and white. It is ONE EGG not three. Not a great example I know, but you get what I am trying to explain I hope.

By Debrar

December 4, 2007 6:15 PM | Link to this

If you would like to know about Mormonism (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) then you ask a Mormon or check out the website: www.mormon.org

If you want to know about the Jewish faith, you don’t ask a “Hitler”

By Jim Smith

December 4, 2007 6:20 PM | Link to this

Debrar has a court order to stay away from harassing Andrew Price.

By Dramaman

December 4, 2007 6:25 PM | Link to this

I don’t know Andrew Price, no harrass Mormons, but his claim that Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers is consistent with what I know about Mormonism. Would anybody care to refute this statement?

By Andrew Price

December 4, 2007 6:40 PM | Link to this

Debrar- an organisation that spends $400,000 on a court action to silence me obviousely is worried . Needless to say I cannot afford the top lawyers the Mormons can afford . You are also selective in what you are saying - you omitted to mention that the Mormons in the legal Jurisdiction of Scotland instigated criminal charges against me and lost , the Judge ruling comprehensively in my favour . Lastly you should know Mormon Missionaries all over the world are talking to me in direct disobedience to their leaders who have forbidden contact with me - truely a mark of a cult .

Enough of your red herrings , this blog is not about me but about Mitt Romney and his speech . I ask again will Romney come clean as to his belief that Jesus is the Devil’s brother .

By wyobo

December 4, 2007 6:48 PM | Link to this

Being LDS, I find it troubling that there are so many different ideas as to what a “MORMON” is. We are just like everyone else, we have problems and obsticals to overcome just like everyone else. We do not have horns and a forked tail as some think, and we don’t want to overthrow the government or any other religous institutions. We want to worship how we believe, and allow all others to do the same. I find it kind of stupid that MITT has to explain his religous beliefs when no other candidate has to explain their relighous beliefs. What goes here anyway? MITT is not from another planet, or even another country. Why should he not have the same rights as the others?????????????????

By Jesse Sharpton

December 4, 2007 6:51 PM | Link to this

All I know is those Mormons are some weird suckas who believe some weird stuff … Smith sounds like he was on an acid trip.

By HMH

December 4, 2007 6:59 PM | Link to this

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and our faith is built upon Jesus of the bible and the church he established. This is simply his church in the latter days. Joseph Smith was a prophet, not the Savior of the World. There is nothing that Paul taught that is not completely consistent with what I believe. If you could step back just a little ways you would see that many of your arguments were no doubt used by members of the church of england to describe the “heathens” that led the reformation. I have a new-found respect and admiration for the reformists as I am just beginning to see the narrow-minded bigotry they faced. I can assure you that Mitt prays to the Father in the name of Jesus and his prayers are answered. I can also assure you that Jesus loves Mitt as much as any of us and those who falsely accuse him will be held to account. Mitt may or may not be President, but be careful not to burn bridges you will have to cross someday.

By LeAnn

December 4, 2007 7:03 PM | Link to this

Where I grew up, every weekend you could see a free movie at the Baptist church on the corner. This free movie was all about how “evil” Mormons are. It was more fiction than fact and in my estimation more motivated by competition that sincere desire to save souls. Now these same Baptists will end up with a presidential candidate who is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage as a direct result of their smear campaign of years gone by. Nice job.

By Andrew Price

December 4, 2007 7:11 PM | Link to this

Wyobo - you say Mitt Romney is not from another planet and you are Mormon , but infact you believe that all humanity originated from a planet near a star called Kolob . Can you tell us your understanding of the Mormon hymn ” If I could hie to Kolob ” or shall we leave it to Mitt Romney in his speech ? Again if the American people heard his explanation they might conclude he is not a Christian .Here is another question for Mitt Romney - when his organisation was baptizing dead Jewish holacaust victims - did he protest against it or did he go along with it . The Mormons may wish to slander everyone who is concerned about these issues as bigots , but they have to accept it is not just Christians who are concerned about these sort of issues but people of other faiths and people with no faith

By Casey

December 4, 2007 7:11 PM | Link to this

JB:

You don’t follow the Bible then. You follow the Creed at the Counsel of Nicea and Constantine. This is where the idea came from that said that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost were one being. The Trinity DID NOT originate in the Bible it originated from within the Catholic church.

The Church of Jesus Christ (Mormons) believes that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct beings, but one in purpose as evidenced many times in the Bible (Jesus’ baptism, His prayer at Gethsemane, account of Stephen, etc).

Besides this evidence that they are distinct being. Joseph Smith said that he LITERALLY saw them both face to face, standing side by side.

This is called Faith, but it does not disqualify a man from becoming president of the United States.

By S. Kittel

December 4, 2007 7:13 PM | Link to this

It’s about time. True colors amongst media outlets have come out with the religion/Romney issue. The AP’s Glenn Johnson wrote a piece yesterday that was riddled with inaccuracies and political slant. For those Americans with even half a brain, it was obvious. That which was absolutely false: Smith “corrected the bible.” That Mormons have multiple wives in heaven, and most importantly that Mormons regard other churches as apostates. his article reduced the AP to a political activist, not an impartial news source. It is appalling the AP editor Cassata let this be published. So this article’s content is very good to see. I don’t want to see slant for Romney, but not against him either. Hypocrites come out during elections.

By Paul

December 4, 2007 7:14 PM | Link to this

Mr JB, When I asked my Mormon friend to explain the godhead it was simple straightforward and concise; plainly backed up with scripture from the new and old testament. You should probably come up with something better than the “Egg and the Yoke?!?” What talking about? You should study a bit of history. Do a search on the Nicene creed and understand whose butt the Egg and Yoke came out of. Go Mitt!

By Ormonde Martin

December 4, 2007 7:14 PM | Link to this

As a member of the LDS church, a lifelong conservative, what I find most shocking is that so many Mormons would vote for Romney.

He is too much carried away by the false directions of a president who you can tell is lying by the fact that his lips are moving. Romney’s position on wars of agression, torture, and many other issues are not in accordance with what I was taught as Christian/Mormon values growing up.

The theological idiocyncracies are of far less weight in my judgement of someone’s moral character. Those have more to do with what theologies a person was raised with. What counts is real values he has or lacks, how he treats his fellow man and his enemies. Romney is no better off than all the deluded so-called christians supporting Bush and wars, unlimited debt being heaped upon our children, etc. and is certainly no good example of Mormonism to the world.

By Shawn

December 4, 2007 7:15 PM | Link to this

The poster above claims some strange things about Mormons that are completely incorrect. It’s definitely not what the Mormons teach. I’ve studied the Mormon faith for 30 years and it’s a gross exaggeration intended to shock and mislead. I’m sure he follows the modus operandi of many of the extremist anti-Mormons who just can’t leave the Mormons alone. He picks up some obscure second-hand quote from 200 years ago that’s not considered doctrine, and bases his arguments on that. The Mormon church is very open about its core doctrine, whch is consistent in every church across the world: it’s posted in their entirety on www.mormon.org and www.lds.org. If someone claims they’ve found something new and hidden, yet Mormons themselves say, “I don’t believe that and have never heard it,” the only explanation is another agenda. There are plenty of unique things about the Mormons to discuss without making things up.

By Tedster

December 4, 2007 7:18 PM | Link to this

I was raised Mormon and found the truth in 2000. The Mormon faith does not believe in the Holy Trinity. They actually believe that God and Jesus are two different men. The Bible teaches that the deity is 3 in 1, God Jesus and the Holy Spirit. See the book of John chapter 1 verses 1 and 14. Therefore Mormons cannot believe in the trinity. Also the Mormons believe in 3 levels of Heaven and if they do all these works like 2 year mission trip, temple marriage and many others, then they will be going to the highest level of heaven called the Celestial Kingdom. And the men will be gods of different worlds and have wives assigned to them and they will be able to make babies and these babies will go to their own world. This is why they believe that God is a physical man. If you don’t believe me I dare you to watch a film called “The God Makers”. It tells the truth about the Mormon church by a former Mormon who was very high up in their priesthood.

By db

December 4, 2007 7:19 PM | Link to this

Good question Andrew, can you tell me who created satan?

By S. Kittel

December 4, 2007 7:32 PM | Link to this

Price and Sharpton are both clear examples of the ignorance surrounding this issue.
Price states the LDS church is “worried” about him. Good grief, are you really that dense? They are protecting thier missionaries. How arrogant could you be to think their motivation was because of you? No, Mr. Price, you don’t matter…at all.

Sharpton, oh Sharpton. If you can’t write or speak in English why should we even consider what you have said (or try to say)?

Good show, Debrar. Keep holding the Rod.

By Fred

December 4, 2007 7:37 PM | Link to this

I find all sorts of theological problems with the Mormon religion. I find just as many with the Baptist religion. Neither one is “true” Christianity to me. The Mormons I have known through my life live what they profess to believe, the Baptists don’t. The Mormons I have known are without exception fine upstanding people whom I am proud to have known. I wouldn’t walk across the street to pee on a Baptist if they were on fire. If Baptist hold the only way to get to heaven, I will gladly go to hell. Jerry Cline, Mark Davis, David Slagle, all “fine upstanding” Baptist preachers who have taught me this “belief”. Go Mitt

By Andrew Price

December 4, 2007 7:44 PM | Link to this

db - when you say good question do you mean my last blog concerning whether or not Mitt Romney objected to the horrible practise of the Mormon organisation baptizing dead Jewish holacaust victims ?

On the matter of who created Satan - it was the most High God - the Father , The Son and The Holy Spirit . All things were created by God and that is why we Christians are so deeply offended that Jesus is the Devil’s brother which makes Him to be of the same essence as the Devil and therefore a created being . To all you Mormons the Devil’s brother could not save an ant , but the Lord of Glory the true Jesus can save you as He has saved many a Mormon who have come out of the cult such as the brave blogger Tedster see above .

By S. Kittel

December 4, 2007 7:53 PM | Link to this

Some contend Baptists dislike Mormons out of jealousy because their church is so splintered compared to the organization of the LDS church. I have asked some Baptists. The best answer I got was that they say Mormons are not Christians because the LDS church claims it is the only true church. However, this is not the truth. Huckabee said in the last debate (which was a joke) that if they keep kicking you in the rear it’s only proof you’re stil in front. I think that’s a great analogy that describes why Baptists dislike Mormons so much (some, not all, I know). I sit back and hope Evangelicals keep kicking.
I can attest to you that reading scripture and asking Our Heavnely Father for confirmation that the LDS church and its doctrine are true will result in revelations. I was not born Mormon but could never deny the revelation I received. If your heart and mind is open, it will happen. See for yourself.

By hismin.com

December 4, 2007 7:55 PM | Link to this

So let’s begin in the year 1820.

Joseph Smith claimed he had a visit from God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, in 1820. He said that they told him that all churches were wrong and were an abomination to God and that he should not join any of them. He said that when he told his community about God’s visit, that it initiated his fierce persecution. Later he said that he received visits from the angel Moroni, who Joseph Smith said was a resurrected being who had died close to Smith’s area in New York state about 1400 years earlier. Moroni, Joseph Smith asserted, had buried in New York in the Hill Cumorah a record of his people who had lived on the American continent from about 600 B.C. to about 421 A.D. That record, Joseph Smith was told, would be given to him to translate. Then, a few years later Joseph Smith said that he received the record, written on gold plates in “reformed Egyptian” language that no one but he could understand. He was also told not to show these gold plates to anyone, but that some time later a few selected people would be given the privilege to view them. He said that he then translated the plates and published the material as the “Book of Mormon” and gave the gold plates back to the angel Moroni.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that the name of the Church was given to Joseph Smith by revelation. However, when Smith first organized the Church in 1830, it was called the “Church of Christ,” then four years later the name was changed to the “Church of Latter-day Saints,” then in 1838, it was changed again, this time to the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”, as it is known today. Joseph Smith claimed that he received many revelations from God, and he began to introduce many new doctrines to his new Church; one of the doctrines was polygamy, a practice that Smith denied publicly but practiced secretly. That doctrine was the obvious downfall of Joseph Smith, and he was killed in 1844 as a result of the polygamy controversy.

Now let’s go back and look at this above information a little closer and in detail.

Joseph Smith claimed that after he had seen a vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ, he said that he told it first to a Methodist preacher and that it started the entire community, “all men of high standing” and “the great ones of the most popular sects,” to persecute him bitterly, him being only a boy of 14 years of age. Wouldn’t you think that kind of commotion would have caused someone somewhere to write about it? - At least the Palmyra Newspaper would have written something, since Joseph Smith claimed that “all men” were united to bring a “bitter and reviling persecution” against him. Not many important events took place in that little town, and even unimportant gossip was printed. But one searches in vain from 1820 on to find an account about a young boy’s vision or persecution, or to find a story regarding the revival excitement that Smith later claimed was the reason why he went to the grove to seek God in prayer and received this fantastic vision. Joseph Smith said that he was told twice in this vision not to join any of the religions (see “Pearl of Great Price” 2:5-26), but it is interesting to note that in 1823, Joseph’s mother, sister and two brothers joined the Presbyterian Church, and later Joseph himself sought membership in the Methodist Church, where his wife was a member. Records show that Joseph was expelled in 1828, because of his belief in magic and also because of his “money-digging activities.”

Joseph’s newly organized church started to publish its history as events took place. This publication was called the “Messenger and Advocate.” Oliver Cowdery was the main writer and its accuracy was checked by Joseph Smith himself. In this publication Joseph tells how, after his brother Alvin’s death, and after his mother, sister and two brothers had joined the Presbyterian Church, he started to seek religion and pray “if some Supreme Being existed” (vol. 1 p. 79). IF HE HAD HAD A VISION OF GOD THE FATHER AND HIS SON, JESUS CHRIST IN 1820, HE MOST CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE KNOWN BY 1823 OR 1824 THAT A SUPREME BEING EXISTED. By reading diaries, records, newspapers, etc., one seeks in vain to find any mention of this so-called “First Vision” story until 1842, when it was published in “Times and Seasons,” 22 years after this vision supposedly took place. It becomes quite obvious that this report was an after-thought, since the Vision story talks about two separate gods and the Book of Mormon says that there is only one God; and that Jesus, God the Father and Holy Ghost are this one God. Examples: Alma 11:26-33; 18:26-28; Mosiah 15:1, 2, 5, etc. “The Book of Commandments” (now called “Doctrine and Covenants”) was published in 1835 and it included lectures given in the School of the Prophets. Lecture 5 says God is a Spirit, and the Son only has the body of flesh and bones. (The lectures have later been removed from the “D&C” but they are available as a separate small book.) There is now an added footnote to this lecture 5, which says that Joseph received further light and knowledge in 1843 and THEN knew that God the Father also had a body of flesh and bones. That statement alone tells that there was no vision of the Father and the Son in 1820. Had there been a vision, he wouldn’t have needed this “further light and knowledge” about the Father having a body of flesh and bones. It was not until 1844, that Joseph started to preach about a god who was once a man and progressed into godhood, and how men can also become gods. (ee “Teachings by Prophet Joseph Smith” pp. 345-347). Thus, there is absolutely no evidence for the first vision as it appears in the Pearl of Great Price, or that the vision was known to Mormons or non-Mormons prior to 1842 or thereabouts. It was not until the 1880’s that this story was accepted by the Church. Prior to that time, we were able only to read denials about it. For example, in “Journal of Discourses,” vol. 2, p. 171, in 1855, Brigham Young preached a sermon in which he said:

“LORD DID NOT COME TO JOSEPH SMITH, BUT SENT HIS ANGEL TO INFORM HIM THAT HE SHOULD NOT JOIN ANY RELIGIOUS SECT OF THE DAY, FOR THEY WERE ALL WRONG…”

John Taylor later said the same thing, see J. of D. vol. 20, page 167, on March 2, 1879. Heber C. Kimball in vol. 6, page 29, said:

“DO YOU SUPPOSE THAT GOD IN PERSON CALLED UPON JOSEPH SMITH, OUR PROPHET? GOD CALLED UPON HIM, BUT DID NOT COME HIMSELF…”

George A. Smith told the same story in the Journal of Discourses, vol. 12, pp. 333-334. One wouldn’t really even have to dig deeper than that to find out that the claims of the Church today regarding Joseph Smith’s so-called First Vision are not true, according to documentary evidence of the time, and Joseph Smith should - and these facts should - be exposed, just as Joseph Fielding Smith said they should.

Now let’s look at the Book of Mormon. Early Mormon apostle Orson Pratt made a statement concerning the Book of Mormon:

” ‘The Book of Mormon’ must be either true or false. If true, it is one of the most important messages ever sent from God… If False, it is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions… The nature of the “Book of Mormon” is such, that if true, no one can possibly be saved and reject it; If false, no one can possibly be saved and receive it… If, after a rigid examination, it be found imposition, it should be extensively published to the world as such; the evidences and arguments on which the imposture was detected, should be clearly and logically stated, that those who have been sincerely yet unfortunately deceived, may perceive the nature of deception, and to be reclaimed, and that those who continue to publish the delusion may be exposed and silenced… by strong and powerful arguments - by evidences adduced from scripture and reason…” (Orson Pratt’s Works, “Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon”: Liverpool, 1851, pp. 1, 2.)

We hope to show clearly and logically, even though very briefly in this letter, that the Book of Mormon is not a divinely inspired record, but a 19th century product. Joseph Smith claimed that after he translated the gold plates, he returned them to an angel - so there is no way to inspect them or check the accuracy of the translation. Mormons often refer to the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. Most of these men left the Church, but claims are also made that even though they did, they never denied that they had seen an angel who showed them “the plates of the Book of Mormon.” However, in the Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, page 164, Brigham Young stated:

“…witnesses of the Book of Mormon who handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God were afterwards left to doubt and to disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel.”

Joseph Smith himself called these men wicked and liars and by many other demeaning names. In the Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, pages 114-115, George A. Smith lists those who have left the Church and mentions specifically, among others, “the witnesses of the Book of Mormon.” Martin Harris later claimed that he had a better testimony of “the Shakers Book” than he ever had of the Book of Mormon. Reading about these witnesses, one is drawn to the conclusion that they were unstable men and easily convinced; for example, Martin Harris changed his religion at least eight times. Some of the others started their own religions later.

Let’s now look at the Book of Mormon itself. The Book of Mormon presents problems that cannot be explained away. Regarding language: 1 Ne. 1:2, etc., states that Hebrews who left Jerusalem and came to the Americas spoke Egyptian. It is a known fact that Hebrews spoke Hebrew, and their records were kept in Hebrew. Egyptians were their enemies. It is as absurd to think that Hebrews would have written their sacred history in Egyptian as to think that American History would have been written in Russian. In Mormon 9:32, 34, it states that the language was “reformed Egyptian” and that no other people knew their language. There is no known language called “reformed Egyptian.” 1 Ne. 17:5 talks about fruit and wild honey being products of Sinai desert (called Bountiful). Not possible! 1 Ne. 18:1 talks about ample timber that Jews used to make a ship. There is not ample timber in that area. It was a desert; it still is a desert. 1 Ne. 2:6-9 mentions a river named Laman that flows into the Red Sea. There is no river there and there has not been since the Pleistocene era. Botanical problems are many in the Book of Mormon. Wheat, barley, olives, etc., are mentioned, but none of these were in the Americas at that time. North America had no cows, asses, horses, oxen, etc. Europeans brought them hundreds and hundreds of years later. North America had no lions, leopards, nor sheep at that time. Honey bees were brought here by Europeans much later. Ether 9:18, 19, lists domestic cattle, cows and oxen as separate species! They did not even exist in the Americas at that time. The Book of Mormon also mentions swine as being useful to man. Maybe, but Jews would not think of swine as being useful or good; swine were forbidden, unclean animals to the Jews. Horses, asses, and elephants were not here either. And what on earth are “cureloms” and “cumoms”? No such animals have ever been identified anywhere. Domestic animals that are thought to be “useful” would hardly become extinct. Ether 9:30-34 talks about poisonous snakes driving sheep to the south. The Book of Mormon tells that the people ate the snake-killed animals, all of them! (v. 34). Jewish people could not have eaten animals that were killed that way, since Mosaic law forbids it! Chickens and dogs did not exist here at that time either. 3 Ne. 20:16 and 21:12 talk about lions as “beasts of the forests.” Lions do not live in forests or jungles, and they never lived in the Americas. No silk and wool clothing (nor moths) existed, as 1 Ne. 13:7; Alma 4:6; Ether 9:17 and 10:24 indicate, at that time either. Butter is also mentioned, but it could not possibly exist, since no milk-producing animals were found in the Americas at that time.

Ether 15:30-31 says that after Shiz was beheaded, he raised up and struggled for breath!!? In Ether, chapter 6, we learn that furious winds propelled the barges to the promised land for 344 days! Even if the winds were not “furious,” but, for example, blew only 10 miles per hour, the distance traveled in 344 days would have been 82,560 miles, or more than three times around the world. Absurdity, to say the least! And why would the Lord instruct Jared to make a hole on top and bottom of each barge? (Ether 2:20.) When Lehi left Jerusalem, according to the Book of Mormon, his group consisted of fewer than 20 people. Yet 19 years later the people had so prospered and multiplied in the promised land that they built a temple which “manner of construction was like unto the temple of Solomon: and the workmanship thereof was exceeding fine” (2. Ne. 5:16). Looking at what the Bible says about the construction of Solomon’s temple, we find that it took thirty thousand Israelites, a hundred and fifty thousand hewers of stone and carriers, three thousand three hundred supervisors (I Kings 5:13-16) and about seven years to build it. (See also I Kings 6.) And how many people could Lehi have had in his group after 19 years? The book further tells that in less than 30 years after arriving on this continent, they had multiplied so rapidly that they even divided into two great nations. Even the most rapid human reproduction could only have a few dozen in that brief time, and most of them still would be infants and children and about one-third older people. Not only did they divide into “two great nations,” but throughout the book, about every three or four years, they had devastating wars that killed thousands (i.e., Alma 28:2). Starting after the first 19 years or so, Laman and Lemuel and their descendants and followers (!) turned dark skinned because of their disobedience (2 Ne. 5:21). According to the Book of Mormon, dark skin color was a curse from God! This change of skin color is happening throughout the book. In 2 Ne. 30:6 we read that if Lamanites accepted the true gospel, they became “white and delightsome” (and since 1981 printing of the Book of Mormon, they become “pure”) but if they left this true gospel, they became “dark and loathsome.” People’s skin color does not change if they believe or do not believe! Nor is the skin color a curse! The Book of Mormon teaches that Indians originated from these Jewish settlers. Indians are distinctly Mongoloid - they have the “Mongoloid” blue spot, specific blood traits, and their facial features are of typical Asian origin, not Semitic at all. In Ether 7:8, 9, we read of steel and breakable windows (2:23) back in Abraham’s time! Try to explain that to an archaeologist! Steel was not even developed until about 1400 years later. At the end of the Book of Mormon, Moroni tells about a great battle that took place on the Hill Cumorah. Over two hundred thousand people, armed to their teeth, were killed on that hill. The story tells about their weapons, breastplates, helmets, swords, etc. Nothing has ever been found on that hill or anywhere else in this continent, as a matter of fact. Metal, helmets, swords, etc., do not disappear in a mere 1400 years. Before the LDS Church purchased the Hill Cumorah, it was literally dug full of holes and even caves, but nothing was ever found. (Joseph Smith even told about a cave inside of Hill Cumorah and how they - he and Oliver - went in and out of it. It supposedly had wagon loads of gold plates, Laban sword, etc.). When people dig for worms in the Holy Land, they make discoveries The Bible has been proven by archaeology, cities, places, coins, clothing, swords, etc., have been found, but not one single place mentioned in the Book of Mormon has ever been identified. There are still people in the LDS Church who believe that archaeology has proven, at least to a degree, the Book of Mormon. Some missionaries are still using slide presentations of ruins from Mexico and South America, implying that they prove the Book of Mormon. But they are from an entirely different time period. They are ruins of idol worshipers who offered human sacrifices.

In the mid 1970’s, President Spencer W. Kimball made a statement that should have stopped these “faith promoting rumors.” The Church News published it and it said to “stop looking for archaeological evidences for the Book of Mormon, for there is none,” he said. Perhaps he finally realized that it was too embarrassing to insist on Book of Mormon archaeology since professors in the Church’s own University had started to publicly deny that there was any truth to it. Professor Dee Green, in “Dialogue,” summer of 1969, pp. 74-78, wrote:

“The first myth we need to eliminate is that the Book of Mormon archaeology exists. Titles of books full of archaeological half-truths, dilettante on peripheries of American archaeology calling themselves Book of Mormon archaeologists regardless of their education, and a Department of Archaeology at BYU devoted to the production of Book of Mormon archaeologists do not insure that Book of Mormon archaeology really exists… no Book of Mormon location is known…Biblical archaeology can be studied, because we know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (or any location for that matter) were or are…”

Many Mormon scholars have faced the truth and fully agree with Professor Green, but sadly enough, this “myth of the Book of Mormon archaeology” still surfaces from the general membership, who are not updated on these issues. Thomas S. Ferguson was a firm believer and he was sure that archaeology would prove the Book of Mormon. He was an attorney and believed that he knew how to weigh the evidence, once it was found. And a lot of “evidence” was found, but unfortunately for the LDS Church, the evidence did not have any connection to the Book of Mormon story. Thomas S. Ferguson spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and 25 years of his life as a head of “The New World Archaeological Foundation,” funded by the Church. But in spite of all the efforts, by 1970, he had come to the conclusion that all had been in vain and that Joseph Smith was not a prophet and that Mormonism was not true. Here was a man who had devoted his entire life, even before starting this foundation, to Mormonism. He had written a book called”One Fold and One Shepherd” in defense of Mormonism, but later he had to admit that the case against Joseph Smith was absolutely devastating and could not be explained away. “The Book of Abraham” was perhaps the final straw for him, as well as for many others who were more aware of the problems in Mormonism.

But there were others, i.e. B. H. Roberts, noted scholar in the Mormon Church and a General Authority, whose secret manuscript has only fairly recently been published, and who had come to question the Book of Mormon quite some time before Ferguson did. B. H. Roberts had written a typewritten manuscript “Book of Mormon Difficulties” of over 400 pages, sometime between 1922-1933, and in it he admitted that the Book of Mormon is in conflict with what is now known from 20th century archaeological investigation about the early inhabitants of America. After going into a lengthy explanation of impossibilities in the Book of Mormon he also says that he has come to discover things he didn’t know earlier in his life, for instance, that Joseph Smith did have access to a number of books that could have assisted him and given him ideas for the Book of Mormon. Roberts tells how Joseph’s mother wrote in her book, “History of Joseph Smith,” that long before Joseph had received the gold plates, he gave:

“…most amazing recitals… he would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, their 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 much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them.” (Quoted from B. H. Robert’s manuscript, page 280.)

Roberts then goes on to say that Joseph could have gotten his information from “knowledge” that existed in the community, because of the books like Ethan Smith’s “View of the Hebrews” (published nearby in 1823) and Josiah Priest’s book, “The Wonders of Nature and Providence,” published only 20 miles away, about one year later. That book had lots to say about the Hebrew origin of American Indians and their advanced culture and civilization. Roberts then asks:

“…Whence comes the young prophet’s ability to give these descriptions ‘with as much ease as if he had spent his whole life’ with these ancient inhabitants of America? Not from the Book of Mormon, which is as yet, a sealed book to him… These evening recitals could come from no other source than the vivid, constructive imagination of Joseph Smith, a remarkable power which attended him through all his life. It was as strong and varied as Shakespeare’s and no more to be accounted for than the English Bard’s.” (From B. H. Roberts’ typewritten manuscript, page 281.)

Prior to this, B. H. Roberts was known as a great defender of Mormonism, and he is still considered one of the greatest scholars the LDS Church has ever had. He wrote the six volume book “Comprehensive History of the Church,” and many other works as well. “Book of Mormon Difficulties, a Study” is now available in bookstores. There would be much, much more to say why the Book of Mormon is not an ancient record but an obvious production of a very intelligent and creative person, Joseph Smith, who used a number of books, including the Bible, to create this book. Interestingly enough though, not any of the important Mormon doctrines of today are in the book that the Church claims “contains the fullness of the everlasting Gospel.” (According to the General Authorities of the Church, “fullness of the Gospel” means that all doctrines leading to salvation in the celestial kingdom are in that book, and one wouldn’t even need any other books to find information for salvation.) The Book of Mormon teaches against today’ Mormon doctrine, for example, polygamy: Jacob 1:15, 2:22-27; 3:5; Mosiah 11:2; Ether 10:5; (polygamy is not practiced by the mainstream Church today, but it remains as a doctrine of the Church, see D&C 132); eternal progression (that God could have progressed from man to God): Alma 41:8, 3 Ne. 24:6; Mormon 9:9, 10, 19; Moroni 8:18, 23; secret combinations or oaths (temples): Mormon 8:27; 2 Ne. 9:9; 2 Ne. 26:22; Alma 34:36; 37:23, 31. IT TEACHES: that God created the heaven and the earth by His word: Mormon 9:17; Jacob 4:9; that there is only one God: Mosiah 7:27; 13:34; 15:1-5; 16:15; Alma 11:26-33, 38, 39, 44; and no work for the dead: Alma 34:32-33. Doctrines like temple or eternal marriage, priesthoods, etc., are not in the Book of Mormon, and, as we have already mentioned, one can see that this book speaks against polygamy, work for the dead, oaths (temple), men becoming gods, that there is more than one God, etc. It becomes quite obvious to an investigator of Mormonism, that Joseph Smith changed his mind about who God is after 1842 or so. He contradicted the Book of Mormon with the Doctrine and Covenants, i.e.: Alma 34:36, “And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell…” and D&C 130:3, “…the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false”; and the Book of Mormon, Jacob 4:9 “For behold, by the power of his word man came upon the face of the earth, which earth was created by the power of his word. Wherefore, if God being able to speak and the world was, and to speak and man was created…”, and “the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” page 350: “…men who are preaching salvation, say that God created the heavens and earth out of nothing? The reason is, that they are unlearned in the things of God… God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all.” He then started to teach that his God had once been a mere mortal man, etc.

In November, 1967, when discovered Egyptian Papyri was given back by the Metropolitan Museum to the Mormon Church, it brought a great amount of excitement into the hearts of Mormons. Finally there was something concrete that an “angel didn’t take away” that could once and for all prove to the doubting people that Joseph Smith really was a prophet of God and had a God-given gift or ability to translate. We read from the Pearl of Great Price the following introduction to the Book of Abraham.

“TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS BY JOSEPH SMITH. A TRANSLATION OF SOME ANCIENT RECORDS, THAT HAVE FALLEN INTO OUR HANDS FROM THE CATACOMBS OF EGYPT - THE WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM WHILE HE WAS IN EGYPT, CALLED THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM, WRITTEN BY HIS OWN HAND, UPON PAPYRUS.”

This papyri was written in Egyptian language and this would prove that if Joseph Smith’s translation of papyri was correct, it would be possible that he could have translated the Book of Mormon from “reformed Egyptian.” But problems started to surface very soon after the First Presidency had given the papyri to Professor Hugh Nibley of BYU to translate it or to find a translator capable to do so. (By the way, why not the current prophet of the Church? Shouldn’t he have done it?) Now, if this papyri was written by Abraham “by his own hand,” as Joseph Smith had said, it should be at least about 4000 years old. After this papyri was evaluated, even Professor Nibley had to agree that it was a production of not older than the first century A.D. Thus Abraham couldn’t have written it. That was the first blow. The second was that after it was given to several qualified Egyptologists, it was clearly shown not to be what the Book of Abraham said it was. Expectations of the Church members’ had been high. Dr. Sidney B. Perry, one of the most noted scholars, had said:

“The little volume of Scripture known as the Book of Abraham will someday be recognized as one of the most remarkable documents in existence. It is evident that writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, of which our printed Book of Abraham is a copy, must of necessity be older than original text of Genesis…” (Dr. Sidney B. Sperry, “Ancient Records Testify in Papyrus and Stone” 1938, page 39.)

Now that the papyri had been located and proven by the leaders of the Church and its scholars to be the very one Joseph Smith had translated, the question was: does it read the same as what Joseph Smith’s translation said? It was very quickly discovered to be nothing more than a pagan burial record, called the “Book of Breathings,” a short portion of the “Book of the Dead.” Egyptologist, James Henry Breasted, tells that the Book of the Dead is chiefly a book of magical charms. It was written by a very superstitious people and is quite different from the religion taught in the Bible. Mormon writers have admitted that this is the case. (From his book, “Development of Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt,” New York, 1969, p. 308.) “There has been a lot of things written and suggestions made trying to justify the fact that not one mention of Abraham, not his name, not his faith, nothing at all is on this papyri, only pagan beliefs and instructions on afterlife as believed in Egypt.” LDS doctrine on blacks and the priesthood is (was) based on this Book of Abraham. The Utah Mormon Church has not removed this book from their scriptures, but it is interesting to note that the RLDS Church that is directed by the direct descendants of Joseph Smith made this statement in “The New York Times” on May 3, 1970, “…it may be helpful to suggest, that the Book of Abraham represents simply the product of Joseph Smith’s imagination…”

The RLDS Church removed the book from among their scriptures. The only thing that the Utah Mormon Church did, was to allow blacks (1978) to have the priesthood. But all in all, thinking people started to see that a huge shadow was now cast also on the Book of Mormon.

Mormon writer, Klaus Hansen, made some remarks in “Dialogue A Journal of Mormon Thought,” summer 1970, p. 110:

“…To a professional historian, for example, the recent translation of the Joseph Smith papyri may well present the potentially most damaging case against Mormonism since its foundation. Yet the ‘Powers That Be’ at the Church Historian’s Office should take comfort in the fact that almost total lack of response to this translation is an uncanny proof of Frank Kermode’s observation that even the most devastating acts of disconfirmation will have no effect whatever on true believers. Perhaps an even more telling response is that of the ‘liberals,’ or cultural Mormons. After the Joseph Smith’s papyri affair, one might have well expected a mass exodus of these people from the Church. Yet none has occurred. Why? Because cultural Mormons, of course, do not believe in the historical authenticity of Mormon scriptures in the first place. So there is nothing to disconfirm.”

Polygamy, as we have mentioned at the beginning, was the issue that led to the killing of Joseph Smith. Investigation of the records shows that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy from the early 1830’s on. William Clayton was Joseph Smith’s personal secretary and scribe until his death. William Clayton’s diary has been a source for many revelations published in the Doctrine and Covenants. Clayton’s diary tells also how the “revelation” on polygamy came to be. Stated briefly, it came as a result of a discussion between Joseph, his brother Hyrum, and William Clayton, who wrote it down. Emma, Joseph’s wife, had been suspecting Joseph of having affairs with other women, i.e., Fanny Alger about 1831 and from then on. Family life was not very happy and calm. Joseph was relating this to his brother Hyrum and William Clayton. Hyrum suggested that Joseph would write a “revelation” where God gives instructions for Joseph to have other wives. Joseph doubted Emma would believe that. However, William Clayton wrote it down an Hyrum took it to Emma. EMMA DID NOT BELIEVE IT. Later on, Joseph somehow convinced Emma to accept it, which she did for a short time, but after Joseph’s death, Emma went into a total denial of polygamy as if it had never happened. Many thought that her reasons were to protect her children and their memory of their father. Utah LDS Church’s historian, Andrew Jensen, in 1887, taking from the enormous files of then secret manuscript material in the Salt Lake City Church Library, compiled the first list of 27 wives of Joseph Smith. Genealogical Archives were used to add another 21. Nauvoo Temple records were the main source. Fanny Alger was his first plural wife, married to Joseph in 1834. If one looks at the D&C from 1890, it says that revelation was GIVEN July 12, 1843. “History of the Church,” vol. 5. pages 500-501, also says that it was GIVEN that day, but now D&C section 132 says that it was RECORDED July 12, 1843 - implying that it could have been given at an earlier date. This kind of altering of the records of the Church can be noticed quite often by comparing the earlier printings with the more recent ones. Obvious attempts were thus made to save some integrity, since Joseph Smith had made a number of public denials of even knowing anything about polygamy. He and the Church leaders denied it publicly, but practiced it secretly. In the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, printed in 1835, in Section 101:4, there is denial of polygamy, calling it a “crime of fornication…” This remained in the D&C until 1876, when it was removed, and Section 132 added about God commanding the practice of polygamy.

Joseph Smith (and later Brigham Young, also) were even married to women who, at the time of marriage, were still other men’s wives. Historical Records of these strange marriages are available. A few examples might be proper to take here: Prescinda Hunginton Buell, wife of Norman Buell, later also a wife of Heber C. Kimball. She had married Norman Buell in 1827 and they had two children. Joseph married her in the fall of 1838 and had a child by her. She continued to be married to Buell also. Nancy Marinda Johnson Hyde, wife of Orson Hyde, was also one of Joseph’s wives. That caused Orson Hyde to leave the Church for a while, but he came back later. Geneological Archives in Salt Lake City show that Nancy Hyde was later sealed to Joseph Smith on July 30, 1857, years after Joseph Smith’s death. Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs, later wife of Brigham Young, was married to Henry Jacobs on March 7, 1841, and seven and one-half months later, to Joseph Smith, on October 27, 1841. Zina never divorced her husband Henry Jacobs, but after Joseph’s death, Brigham publicly told Jacobs: “The woman you claim for a wife does not belong to you. She is a spiritual wife of brother Joseph, sealed to him. I am his proxy, and she, in his behalf, with her children, are my property. You can go where you please and get another…” Jacobs obviously accepted Brigham’s decision for he stood as a witness when in the Nauvoo Temple, in January 1846, Zina was sealed to Brigham Young for time, and Joseph Smith for eternity. Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, wife of Adam Lightner, claimed later that Joseph had told her that an angel came to him with drawn sword, and commanded Joseph in 1834 to take her as his wife. She was then only 17. In her diary, she wrote that she was sealed and married to Joseph in the Masonic Hall in Nauvoo and sealed again in the Nauvoo Temple by Heber C. Kimball. She later came to Salt Lake City and remained in the Church, even though her husband never joined the Church. The reason why Andrew Jensen, in 1887, did this research on polygamy, was to prove that Joseph Smith did practice polygamy, since RLDS Church was denying that he ever did.

When Oliver Cowdery in 1838 had accused Joseph of these adulterous affairs, Joseph had Oliver excommunicated. The controversy over polygamy was the underlying reason for the death of Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum. William Law’s wife had confessed that she had an affair with Joseph. William Law left the Church and started a publication called “Nauvoo Expositor.” One issue was published and the second one was going to print when Joseph found out that William Law was going to print his wife’s confession in that issue. Joseph had the press destroyed and the building burned. That caused his arrest and, consequently, his death. But he did not die as a martyr, as is claimed by the Church. John Taylor, third president of the church, who was in the prison with Joseph and Hyrum at the time, tells the following in the “Gospel Kingdom,” page 360:

“Joseph opened the door slightly, and snapped the pistol six successive times… afterwards (I) understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, two of whom, I am informed, died.”

The same account is also in the History of the Church, vol. 6, p. XLI and pages 617-618. It was too bad that Joseph Smith was thus killed, but he did not die like a martyr who went “as a lamb to the slaughter” as is claimed by the LDS Church. HE DIED IN A GUNFIGHT, and killed two people before he was shot. Joseph acted as a Mason at the time of his death. John Taylor tells also that Joseph went to the window and made a Masonic distress sign after his gun was empty, hoping that Masons, if there were any among this mob, would rescue him, according to the Masonic oath “to defend one another, right or wrong.”

The Mormon Temple Ceremony compares quite exactly with the Masonic Ceremony, signs, tokens and penalties included. Joseph, Hyrum, Brigham, and others, were Masons. (Cult experts consider Masonic religion to be a Satanic Cult.) Six weeks after Joseph Smith and other Mormons were expelled from the Masonic order, Joseph Smith introduced the Masonic ceremony as the temple ceremony “received as a revelation from God.” When Dr. Reed Durham, director of LDS Institute of Religion, made his discovery of this in 1974, and gave his speech on the subject of the Mormon-Mason connection in front of the Utah History Association on April 20, 1974, he was highly criticized for making this matter public. He also showed the Jupiter talisman and explained that Joseph had had it from 1826 (the same year he was convicted on money-digging charges and being a believer in magic), and that Joseph had this Jupiter talisman on him at the time of his death. The talisman contains symbols relating to astrology and magic. There were other magical items discovered at the same time that belonged to Hyrum Smith. The Patriarch of the Church, Eldridge Smith, supposedly has them in his possession. (And by the way, what has become of Patriarch Eldridge Smith?)

Teachings of the LDS Church became even stranger after Brigham led the Mormons to the Salt Lake Valley. Now they thought they were free to practice what had been illegal elsewhere… i.e., polygamy and blood atonement.

Brigham Young made polygamy public from 1852 on in Utah, even though they still denied it outside of Utah. From this same year on, he started to teach that “Adam is God and Father and the only God with whom we have to do” and that Adam was the father of human spirits as well as Jesus’ physical father. (For these, see the Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp. 50-51; vol. 4, p. 1; vol. 5, pp. 331-332, etc.) The LDS Church has issued denials saying that Adam-God doctrine was never taught, but records clearly show that Brigham Young taught it, not only by mentioning it once or twice, but that he taught it from 1852 until his death in 1877. Let’s look at some of his statements:

“Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize the world. He is Michael, the Arc-angel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken - HE IS OUR FATHER AND OUR GOD, AND THE ONLY GOD WITH WHOM WE HAVE TO DO. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later… the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp. 50-51.

This teaching was repeated and carried on in the other Church’s writings throughout the years. For example, in the Millenial Star, vol. 17, page 195, we read:

“… every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that he (Adam) is God of the whole earth. Then will the words of the prophet Brigham Young, WHEN SPEAKING OF ADAM, be fully realized - ‘HE IS OUR FATHER AND OUR GOD, AND THE ONLY GOD WITH WHOM WE HAVE TO DO.’”

Further in the Millenial Star, vol. 16, page 530, we read the counsel by James A. Little: “I believe in the principal of obedience; and if I am told that Adam is our Father and our God, I just believe it.” The records show that there were only two leaders in the Church who had difficulty with this doctrine, namely apostles Orson Pratt and Amasa Lyman. In one of Brigham’s sermons, printed in the “Deseret News,” June 14, 1873, Brigham declared:

“How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and WHICH GOD REVEALED TO ME - namely that ADAM IS OUR FATHER AND GOD… Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him. He brought one of his wives with him. Who is he? He is Michael… He was the first man on the earth, and its framer and maker. He with the help of his brethren brought it into existence.”

“Then he (Adam) said: “I WANT MY CHILDREN THAT WERE BORN TO ME IN THE SPIRIT WORLD TO COME HERE AND TAKE TABERNACLES OF FLESH THAT THEIR SPIRITS MAY HAVE A HOUSE, A TABERNACLE, OR A DWELLING PLACE AS MINE HAS” and where is the mystery?”

Brigham Young clearly taught for over 20 years as a doctrine the following:

Heber C. Kimball, the First Counselor to Brigham Young, also taught:

“I have learned by experience that there is but one God that pertains to this people, and he is the God that pertains to this earth - THE FIRST MAN. THAT FIRST MAN SENT HIS OWN SON TO REDEEM THE WORLD…” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p. 1.)

Brigham Young had claimed that God Himself had revealed this doctrine to him. Brigham also had claimed that his sermons were “as good as scripture” (J. of D., vol. 13, p. 166). If that is so, then how can the LDS Church today logically reject his teachings that he said came from his God? - (Who was Brigham’s God? Joseph Smith had said: “Some revelations are from God: some revelations are of man: and some are of the devil…” - “Address to All Believers in Christ”, p. 31. - Who determines the source of the revelations, the followers or the prophet?) - Further, if Brigham Young was wrong, how can the modern Church accept him as an authority from God? The LDS Church teaches that there must be an unbroken link of true prophets after the restoration, otherwise the authority would be lost. Contradicting Brigham Young now only proves the incredibility of both the modern Church and Brigham Young, and breaks the link.

One could go on and on about these teachings that clearly show the non-Christian nature of the LDS Church. But let’s look now at some of the LDS Church’s teachings of today about Adam: In the Doctrine and Covenants 27:11, Adam is referred to as the Ancient of Days, spoken by Daniel the prophet ( in Daniel 7:9-14.) But the Ancient of Days is one of the names of GOD ALMIGHTY in the Bible, not Adam. There is absolutely no question about that! There is also no question that the LDS Church believes and teaches that Adam is that one, the Ancient of Days, who will judge the world. Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, in his book, “Mormon Doctrine,” page 34 says:

“Adam is known as the Ancient of Days… In this capacity he will yet sit in formal judgment upon ‘ten thousand times ten thousand’…”

In the Temple ceremony, Michael, the Archangel, is one of the creators of the world and he then “becomes” Adam. According to Mormonism, “GODS” created the world, (see Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 4 and 5), Adam being one of them, one of three gods. It is clearly implied that he is God. There are more writings and documented evidence to this fact.

What does the LDS Church teach about Jesus Christ? First of all, it is already documented above that Brigham Young taught that he (Jesus) was a spirit child of Adam and spirit brother of all human kind, as well as a brother of angels, spirit beings, even the fallen ones, i.e., Jesus being a brother of Lucifer. Brigham further taught that he (Jesus) was also physically a son of Adam, who, as an exalted, resurrected being, came to Mary and fathered Jesus. Brigham has emphasized that Jesus was not begotten by the Holy Ghost, as the Bible says. This teaching shows that Jesus of the LDS Church is not “Emmanuel,” “God with us;” God, who, according to the Bible (Matt. 1:23), became a man for us, to be our Redeemer. Jesus of the LDS Church is a created being, who also had to be redeemed… But, Jesus of the Bible is The Creator - UNCREATED GOD who created everything, including Lucifer (John 1:3; Col.1:16). Let’s look at the modern teachings of the LDS Church: President Ezra Taft Benson said, in his book, “Come unto Christ,” page 4:

“…The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was SIRED by that Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father.”

Bruce R. McConkie, in his book, Mormon Doctrine, on page 742, says:

“God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man, an immortal Personage. And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about this paternity; he was BEGOTTEN, CONCEIVED and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the Son of God, and that designation means what it says.” McConkie, in the same book, pages 546-547, says further, under the heading “ONLY BEGOTTEN SON”: “…Each word is to be understood literally. Only means only; Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the SAME WAY THAT MORTAL MEN ARE BEGOTTEN BY THEIR MORTAL FATHERS.”

This is not what the Bible says. The Bible tells that a Virgin will conceive and bring forth a Son, who is called Emmanuel, meaning “God with us” (not a brother with us!) (Matt. 1:18-23) Mary of the LDS Church was not a Virgin who brought forth a son, but a “wife” of the heavenly Father, whom Brigham declared to be Adam. Orson Pratt, an apostle, told in his doctrinal book entitled, “The Seer,” page 158:

“…The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father. Inasmuch as God was the first HUSBAND TO HER (Mary), it may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in this mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity…”

The leaders of the LDS Church have also taught that their Jesus was married and had children, and that he was even a polygamist. Apostle Orson Pratt, in his book, The Seer, page 172, says:

“…the great Messiah who was the founder of the Christian religion was a Polygamist…the Messiah chose to take upon himself his seed; and by marrying many honorable wives himself, show to all future generations that he approved the plurality of Wives under Christian dispensation… The son followed the example of his Father, and became the great Bridegroom to whom kings’ daughters and many of the honorable Wives were to be married. We have also proved that both God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ inherit their wives in eternity as well as in time…”

Joseph Fielding Smith, who was the president of the LDS Church in 1970’s, said, in an answer to a question: “Was Jesus married?” - “Yes, but do not throw pearls to the swine!” We can clearly see that the LDS church still believes that Jesus was married, but doesn’t want to “throw pearls to the swine” or to reveal this to the non-Mormons.

Bernard P. Brockbank, in the LDS Church’s 147th General Conference, said that the CHRIST FOLLOWED BY THE MORMONS IS NOT THE CHRIST FOLLOWED BY TRADITIONAL CHRISTIANITY; he said:

“… It is true that many of the Christian churches worship A DIFFERENT JESUS CHRIST than is worshipped by the Mormons…” (“The Ensign,” May 1977, p. 26.)

In summary, Jesus of the LDS Church is not Jesus of the Bible. God of the LDS Church is not God of the Bible. Joseph Smith said that there is “A GOD ABOVE THE FATHER OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST…” and in Mormon Doctrine, pages 332-323, we read: “…If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and … God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that he had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? …Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that he had a Father also?” Joseph Smith, in 1844, as recorded in the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 344-347, first told the audience that: “…every man has a natural, and, in our country, a constitutional right to be a FALSE PROPHET, as well as a true one…” Then on the next page, he says: “…I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see.” He tells that “…God himself was once as we are now..and you got to learn how to be Gods yourselves… the same as all Gods have done before you…”

The God of the Bible says: “…Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I KNOW NOT ANY.” (Is. 44:10) If God had a father and he had a father and so on, God of the Bible surely would know that! In the Bible, God calls us to “know,” to “believe” and to “understand” who He is. He says: “Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may KNOW and BELIEVE me, and UNDERSTAND that I am he: BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, NEITHER SHALL THERE BE AFTER ME.” (Isaiah 43:10) To Joseph Smith and to all Mormons, that simply means: THEY WILL NOT BECOME GODS! They cannot “learn” how to become gods! God of the Bible says so! God says: “I AM THE LORD, AND THERE IS NONE ELSE, THERE IS NO GOD BESIDE ME…” (Is. 45:5) God tells what happens to the false prophets who try to lead people after other gods: “If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or the dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. AND THAT PROPHET, OR THAT DREAMER OF DREAMS, SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH; BECAUSE HE HAD SPOKEN TO TURN YOU AWAY FROM THE LORD YOUR GOD…” (Deut. 13:1-5) It is interesting to note that about six weeks after Joseph Smith had preached this sermon (in April 1844), that men will and can become gods and that God was not God from all eternity, Joseph was killed!! Coincidence?? (Orthodox Jews have a saying: “Coincidence is not a kosher word!”)

The Bible tells that God is God “from everlasting to everlasting” (Ps. 90:2), and when speaking about Messiah, GOD BECOMING A MAN (not a man becoming God!) it says: “For unto us a child is born, unto us the son is given:.. and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, THE PRINCE OF PEACE” (Is. 9:6), and “Art thou not from EVERLASTING, O LORD MY GOD, MINE HOLY ONE?” (Hab. 1:12) To the believers of the God of the Bible are given these comforting words: ‘THE ETERNAL GOD IS THY REFUGE, AND UNDERNEATH ARE THE EVERLASTING ARMS…” (Deut. 33:27) To the followers of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and today’s LDS prophets, we would like to say, as Joshua said to Israel: “…choose you this day whom ye will serve… but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” (Joshua 24:15)

In the English Bible (KJV), whenever the word LORD is in all capital letters, in Hebrew it is a name of God, represented by consonants JHWH (Hebrews didn’t dare to pronounce it) and it is translated both LORD or GOD. When God spoke to Moses, He declared Himself to be God, the Great I AM, and He told that by His name JHWH (JE-HO-VAH) he was not known to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This was the first time that He revealed His name (Exodus 6:3).

Throughout the Bible, the words “I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD” (i.e., Ex. 6:7) or “I THE LORD GOD” are used by God to tell the prophet who is speaking. The word LORD (JHWH) and the word GOD (ELOHYIM) (Eloheim) are used as in the example above: I, THE LORD GOD, (not we, like Mormon doctrine teaches). Speaking of the Godhead, “Mormon Doctrine,” page 576, says: “…As each of these persons is a God, it is evident, from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists.” In Hebrew, the word EL means God, word Eloheim is plural form of the word (similarly, the word Cherub is singular and the word Cherubim is plural). When we read in our English Bible: “I AM THE LORD YOURGOD,” if we put it back into Hebrew, it would read: “I am JHWH your Eloheim.” One doesn’t get two gods from it - but only one God. Trinity is not mentioned in the Bible as a word, but plurality of persons in ONE GOD is clearly demonstrated throughout the Bible. The Bible came to us through Israel. To the Jew there is but one God, JHWH. Deut. 6:4 is what Jews repeat daily and with their dying breath say: “Hear, O Israel, LORD our GOD is one LORD” or in Hebrew: “Hear, O Israel, JHWH our Eloheim is JHWH.” Most people agree that Father is God. The Bible teaches that Jesus is God (i.e., John 1:1, 14; 20:28), and that Holy Ghost is God (comp. Acts 5:3 and 4, and 1 Cor. 3:17 with 6:19), but the Bible also teaches that THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD. In Is. 45, verses 5, 6, 14, 18, 21, 22, God says that there is no other God or Lord. Other examples: Deut. 4:35 and 39; 32:39; I Sam. 2:2; II Sam. 7:22; 22:32, I Kings 8:60; Ps. 18:31; Jer. 10:10; Gal. 3:20; Eph. 4:6; Mark 12:32 and 34. In James 2:19, it tells that even demons know that there is only one God. Why is it that the LDS Church doesn’t know that? The LDS Church often says that there is more than one god, because God, in Gen. 1:26, says: “And God said, let us make man in our image…” Note that there is only one image, and the next verse clears it by saying: “So God created man in HIS own image… in the image f God created HE them: (Not WE!) The word Eloheim (GOD) refers to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, but the verb is in the singular in every case where plural form Eloheim appears. Examples of what God says about Himself: “I, the Lord God” (I JHWH Eloheim), not “we”, (JHWH and Eloheim) or “I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD,” not, “we are” JHWH and Eloheim.

Since the Bible declares itself as being God’s word, it doesn’t “argue” about God. The Bible clearly tells that His ways and thoughts are far above our thoughts, but that through the Holy Spirit we will learn to understand what He has done for us and how great His love is towards us. God has given us a simple way, one way, narrow way. Let no one confuse you of that. Jesus said: “I am the way, the truth and the life.” He said, in John 17:3: “…this is eternal life to know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” Just because you may have believed previously false teachings of the LDS Church, it doesn’t mean that you cannot now accept the truth from God’s Word, the Bible.

By S. Kittel

December 4, 2007 8:08 PM | Link to this

So let me confirm the level of arrogance you are at, Mr. Price:

You think the LDS church spent $400k to keep you away from missionaries because, as you put it, they were “worried about you.”

Didn’t Huck himself, in the last debate, say that it is “impossible for a finite person” to understand everything in the Bible?” Just because you don’t understand the issue of Kolob you tear it down (which you will answer for the judgment you have passed here). So do you only embrace that which you fully understand? Since you couldn’t possibly understand all of the Bible it sounds to me like you have a minmal amount of faith in anything. But I’m asking, do you? Do you understand everything in the Bible? I believe you are arrogant enought to say you do.

I’m waiting…

By Jack Squat

December 4, 2007 8:08 PM | Link to this

To understand Mormonism, all you have to do is watch the South Park episode from a couple of years ago that focused on the history of the cult.. I mean church.

By S. Kittel

December 4, 2007 8:19 PM | Link to this

Hismin, go publish a book. Do you really think people are going to spend that much time reading your views? Your post is obnoxiously long.

By S. Kittel

December 4, 2007 8:22 PM | Link to this

Nice, Mr. Squat. I love to see the source of ignorance. Do you base all your views on cartoons? People like you are scary. I can’t believe you are in the gene pool.

By S. Kittel

December 4, 2007 8:24 PM | Link to this

hahahaha

Hey Squat, does your Mommy ask you what you’ve learned every Saturday morning after all the cartoons? Does she have you write a report?

By Danny

December 4, 2007 8:27 PM | Link to this

Separation of church and state does not meant that a candidate should not discuss his faith. The Constitution prohibits the ESTABLISHMENT of any particular faith as a State religion. But there is no separation of God and state.

Do Mormons believe that Jesus is a God incarnate? Yes, and also that every Mormon male is! They are NOT evangelical Christians.

Should that eliminate anyone from the presidency? A president swears to uphold the Constitution. Fidelity to that committment is more important than giving lip-service to Christianity, which is all we have seen from most recent presidents and candidates!

By hismin.com

December 4, 2007 8:40 PM | Link to this

@ S. Kittel and other bloggers

Sorry my post is so long but if you will take the time to read it, it has some very interesting stuff in it. This blog is a waste of time and hopefully both sides of this issue will take the time to research both points of view. And to those out there who don’t believe in Jesus, please read The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel (former Atheist).

By Other CJ

December 4, 2007 8:46 PM | Link to this

wackolibhack anbd captbilly:

where did you find in the constitution the words, “Separation of Church and State”?

By Other CJ

December 4, 2007 8:46 PM | Link to this

wackolibhack anbd captbilly:

where did you find in the constitution the words, “Separation of Church and State”? It’s not IN there!

By Danny

December 4, 2007 8:58 PM | Link to this

No, Separation of church and state in not in the constitution. I was replying to someone above who brought it up to imply that candidates shouldn’t talk about their faith!

By Marv Swett

December 4, 2007 9:34 PM | Link to this

@hismin.com

You wrote “And to those out there who don’t believe in Jesus, please read The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel (former Atheist).”

Why should I take the word of someone else for what I should believe? This is the fundamental fatal flaw of theistic logic: Because someone else was an atheist (no need to capitalize it folks), then I must certainly want to believe what that person says.

Mitt Romney calls himself a Republican. Does that mean you support him because of his Republicanism?

How thick must some people be?

By Marv Swett

December 4, 2007 9:51 PM | Link to this

No separation between Church and State?

You folks really want that?

Do you realize the door swings both ways?

If you are adamant that the Church should be allowed in every instance to drive the policy of State, then it will not be long before the State begins to interfere with the affairs of the Church.

Don’t believe it could happen? Just ask the Navajo Nation and hundreds of other smaller sects whose practices are outlawed by state and federal agencies. Won’t happen to you? Riiight.

The more you draw yourself into the State, the more the State will want to insinuate itself into your private affairs. As an avowed Libertarian, I can guarantee you that is a line you don’t want to cross.

Once the government gets into your business, it is neigh impossible to remove it.

By Ryan

December 4, 2007 9:55 PM | Link to this

I enjoyed reading the above blogs, but I think most are misleading. To find out about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ask a Mormon or check out the website: www.mormon.org. or lds.org.

I’m a mormon and I haven’t decided who I’m voting for. My church doesn’t tell me who to vote for. I’m excited Mitt is running and appreciate the attention the church is receiving. It’s a good religion and the core beliefs will make anyone happy.

By JB

December 4, 2007 10:04 PM | Link to this

Dear Casey,

The First Council of Nicaea was held in 325 AD. The apostles teaching and writings of the New Testament, not to mention the teachings of the Old Testament, have been teaching the oneness of GOD the only TRUE GOD long before that. I don’t follow the Nicene Creed and definitely not the Catholic Church, but the teaching of the Bible and the revealed truth of the Holy Spirit. You see, I had a personal one on one encounter with Jesus, similar to, but not nearly as powerful as Paul the apostle. I’m no apostle that is for sure, but GOD revealed himself to me in a supernatural way by the Holy Spirit 23 years ago. He changed my life forever. I can say in total confidence, JESUS IS LORD by the grace and mercy of God. I know who he is by revelation and the confirmation of scripture, not the teaching of men. The Jehovah’s Witnesses always bring up that same Nicene Creed argument over and over.It has nothing to do with God’s own revelation of Himself to mankind. It’s just like the naming of say the planet PLUTO. The planet existed long before it was given a name. The Oneness of GOD in three distinct persons existed and was revealed long before a “name” was given to describe it. Satan was at work back in the days of the apostles, just read 1,2,3 John. The spirit of antichrist was already at work. I am not surprised some things needed to be addressed and straighten out, to preserve the truth of GOD’s revealed nature and being. I not a brilliant man, but I know the GOD whom I serve…I am just saying, think about what you are believing…your eternity depends on it. “If you do not believe I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins”. Jesus said it, not me. Stop listening to LDS theology or JW theology and listen to the still voice of GOD. If you really want to know the truth, you will find it, even though it may cost you everything dear to you. Friends, family, business, position, acceptance etc. I know it is difficult to go against the “church”…but it will save your soul. What is worth more than that?

By Diane

December 4, 2007 10:42 PM | Link to this

I’ve been a Southern Baptist for 57 years, a die hard, super conservative Republican and I would never vote for Romney.

Unfortunately, there are no good, viable candidates who’ll emerge past the conventions. This may be the first time I do not vote.

By Churchill

December 4, 2007 10:49 PM | Link to this

That’s great Diane, just give the election to Hillary. Brilliant. She fight for what you believe in. Really, she will.

By cprince

December 5, 2007 12:21 AM | Link to this

I attend various LDS congregations regularly every week. Not once have I heard Mitt Romney’s name mentioned from the pulpit. Rarely have I overheard his name mentioned in social conversations at church.

What I have heard from time to time over the years is the church’s political position, which is that members are encouraged to vote, they are specifically discouraged from bloc voting, (i.e. for a particular party’s candidate), they should try to be informed, and weigh where candidates are on the issues, and vote for candidates they feel will best represent and champion their values.

It was Joseph Smith himself who said, “I teach them correct principles, then let them govern themselves.”

I doubt there is another religious organization in America today that has as much intentional disinterest in politics in general, or in getting one of its members elected to positions of power.

The LDS Church, to put it simply, trusts its doctrine and the accompanying spirit of truth to change hearts. It doesn’t need the presidency to find a pulpit.

As for the theologic debate (if it could be called that) going on here, I think these anti-mormon whack jobs speak for themselves. Their worn-out criticisms sound, as always, like so many yapping little dogs. I think that is apparent to any halfway intelligent reader.

But, if its important to you to know if Mormons are “True Christians,” ask yourself: If some backwoods Southern evangelical congregation periodically handles snakes, casts out devils, speaks in tongues, or engages in some other practice that could be considered peculiar by an outsider, but preaches from the Bible and follows the same basic Christian principles and beliefs as everybody else, is it labeled a “cult” by mainstream evangelicals?

By cornplanter

December 5, 2007 12:43 AM | Link to this

Jeepers creepers, Hismin,

It took me well over a half hour to read your blog here. I wonder how many hours it took you to write it? Could it have been prepared ahead of time?

Even so, I have copied it into my files to pass on to Mormon friends who need to know about their subjugation.

I have searched a bit about Mormonism myself, and found several of the points you made in my research. Your post, if read by an open mind, absolutely proves the words of Joseph Smith to be lies. Since I have come up with so many of the same points, mainly from Mormon or BYU historians who have uniformly set out to prove the truth of Joseph Smith but always found that they could not, I must thank you for having the courage to post such a huge piece on a blog space such as this.

As for a candidate being capable of being president, I seriously doubt that any president has actually believed all the dogma of his religion. If they did, no matter which sect, we would probably have seen less graft and corruption. Certainly Bush is a Born Again Corporate Tool.

Jesus said, “Those who are not against us are on our side.” Bush said, “If you are not for us, you are against us.” And Bush dares to call himself a CHRISTIAN?????? (This anti-Christ message from Bush explains why he wants all opposition to his assault on America labeled terrorism.)

Abraham Lincoln did not join a church in DC, because no church would put as the sole requirement for membership, that we must Love God with all our hearts and souls, and our neighbors as ourselves.

Some day, we will judge someone’s religion by the light, peace, and harmony they radiate; not by the scriptures they promise they believe.

Love to All, Cornplanter

By SC

December 5, 2007 6:21 AM | Link to this

What I love and respect most about the LDS church (I was raised in a non-lds home and from early age studied and went to other churches) is that they give you the basics when teaching those interseted in learning and THEN tell you to go study it and pray about it for yourself. They do not and have NEVER presumed to speak for God! Those of us who received affirmative answers when we put the question to God got what we were personally ready for and need. Those who don’t, are directed towawrds what they need and are ready for at that time.

We have NEVER been told what to believe or how to believe (OR VOTE), rather we are always always encouraged to take what we hear at the pulpit and take what we read to the Lord for his own confirmation.

The LDS do not say “LISTEN TO US WE ARE THE ONLY WAY” they say, study it out and pray about it and find out for yourself. PERIOD.

By Unaffiliated Voter

December 5, 2007 6:58 AM | Link to this

Wonder if RON PAUL would consider Mitt for VP?

Would Mitt consider RON PAUL?

We certainly dont need a preacher from Arkansas trying to lead America in this time of turmoil.

www.RonPaul2008.com

www.DailyPaul.com

www.TeaParty07.com

www.RonPaulBlimp.com

www.RonPaulNation.org

www.Youtube.com/ronpaul

By Keith

December 5, 2007 8:57 AM | Link to this

I can’t wait until he tries to explain the planet Kolob (where the MAN Christians call their God lives as one of us…with 12 young-uns in tow) and the Mormon belief thatt he sun and moon are inhabited by people dressed as the dude on the Quaker Oats can…remember…this is the guy with the nuke key and we want HIM to be able to RATIONALIZE! Rationalization would entail leaving the church as a lunacy cult.

By Debrar

December 5, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this

Andrew Price is anti Mormon and is from England where he has a court order to stay away from harrassing Mormon missionaries.

If you would like to know about Mormonism (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) then you ask a Mormon or check out the website: www.mormon.org

If you want to know about the Jewish faith, you don’t ask a “Hitler

By S Shiver

December 5, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this

Something’s wrong. Why hasn’t Will Jones commented on this topic. Isn’t this some sort of conspiracy involving Rome and Pedophiles?

By Will Jones

December 5, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this

America’s Motto is Novus Ordo Seclorem. The above thread proves it correct.

Romney is a pathetic draft-dodging fake of a man. I served with at least one Mormon in the Army so I know being a Mormon, per se, isn’t the entire reason Romney is such a loser…although polygamy and pedophilia go hand-in-hand through history and if Romney ain’t a “duck” he sure talks and walks like one.

By Debrar

December 5, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

Evangelicals for Mitt

http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/

By mtsqph

December 5, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

According to the ‘Spaulding Memorial’ a book published in 1897, by Charles Warren Spaulding, A.M., the widow of one Rev. Solomon Spaulding stated that her husband was in fact the author of a manuscript that was purloined by Joseph Smith and used as the basis of what he called the ‘Book of Mormon’. Rev. Solomon Spaulding lived in Ohio, and served in the Revolutionary War as a private in Capt. John William’s Co. He graduated from Dartmouth College in 1785 and then studied divinity becoming the licentiate of Windham Conn. Congregation… not a man given to lie. He died in 1795. His widow explains on pages 240-241 how Rev. Spaulding was in fact the author of this manuscript that became the basis of the ‘Book of Mormon’. It is an amazing thing to read. All one has to do is dig into the archives of such publications as “The Springfield Ohio Republican”. Mitt Romney and his Faith… are all a fabrication of a fictitious story… and that is a truth.

By Debrar

December 5, 2007 3:08 PM | Link to this

mtsqph -That’s laughable!!

Tell me some stuff you’ve found on other religions too — whether or not it’s correct.

If you’re interested in learning about “Mormonism” (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) then either ask a Mormon or go to www.mormon.org

Get the facts from the correct source.

If you were interested in the Jewish faith, you would not ask a “Hitler”

By Debrar

December 5, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this

S Shiver:

You can rest now, Will Jones has graced us once more with his lies and hatred.

By cy fletcher

December 5, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this

The same ones who insist that Romney’s Mormonism does not count because of ‘values’ are the same ones who besmirch Barach Obama as a closet Islamic terrorist. Most Republicans vote based on pocketbook issues and economic ideology while screaming about values! God, what hypocrisy!!

By Iron Mike

December 5, 2007 5:13 PM | Link to this

Most Democrats these days vote for candidates who support income redistribution, who punish free enterprise, and who support social legislation that not long ago would have been considered pretty disgusting.

JFK wouldn’t recognize the Democrat party of today.

By Tiffer

December 13, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this

Is Debrar yet another citizen that does not know our constitution? The term “seperation of church and state” does not come from the constitution. It comes from a letter sent from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in response to their letter asking whether they will be protect due to some circumstances at that time in history. His response was that their church would be protected because the government cannot establish a rule for a specific church. The constitution clearly protects our rights to free worship and our declaration and the constitution make it clear that it is expected that we will embrace God the Father in government and religious affairs. It just protects the church from government run and the government from being run by the church such as is the case initiating the American Revolution of which these documents and our present government arose. Please, for your sake and that of our country, read the constitution for yourself. You will be surprised how wise our founding fathers were. They knew that sinful man would behave in this manner, so they built in provisions to stop some of this nonsense.