Would You Vote For A Mormon?

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Those ancient Greeks had a "pure" democracy. Everyone eligable to vote did on every issue. They just tightly controled who was eligable. IE rich males. The poor, the slaves, and women were not eligable.

There is a down side to having parents in total control of what is taught, and who teaches.

[LeSellers]

There is a down side to having parents in total control of what is taught, and who teaches.

Whatever it may be (assuming there is one to begin with, which I dispute), it is far less so than the down side of having the government in total control of what is taught and who teaches.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Those ancient Greeks had a "pure" democracy. Everyone eligable to vote did on every issue. They just tightly controled who was eligable. IE rich males. The poor, the slaves, and women were not eligable.

No, they did not vote on every issue.

That's why they had the leaders appointed.

The demos told the leaders what they wanted done, and then let (or forced) them to do it. And woe betide those who failed, even if it was the demos who made the bad choice.

Lehi

[maklelan]

Heh.

I'm a gay, atheist, ex-Mormon.

Guess I should give up my dream of the presidency...

Daniel2

As long as you keep Calvin and Hobbes associated with your campaign, I'd vote for you (provided, of course, we were on the same page fiscally).

[Questing Beast]

...

Maybe we should put everyones name in the hat, and that person is President only to be released for good behavior.

That's the system proposed by Arthur C. Clarke in his futuristic book, "The Songs of Distant Earth". It makes a lot of sense to me....

[ELF1024]

That's the system proposed by Arthur C. Clarke in his futuristic book, "The Songs of Distant Earth". It makes a lot of sense to me....

I preferred Heinlein's in Starship Troopers... but that's just me.

[herestonewbeginnings]

Hi Zerinus. I understand what you are trying to say, most "religions" can be made to look irrational by their contrarians. Those religions you listed, however, all have hundreds/thousands of years of history. Muslims can trace back to Cain and Able, well at least in part (won't go into). The Jews the Old Testament, etc... The key difference between them all is what they do with Jesus, which is another issue of concern with Mormon Doctrine. Back to the history though, LDS is not even 200 years old and it's historical claims have repeatedly been proven non-existent. Egyptologists have repeatedly debunked the alleged writing on the tablets that could only be read through the golden spectacles. One of the things the Smithsonian also points out is that all evidence points to the earliest civilaztions in N.America came from north, and of a completely different race than what is claimed in mormon history. The Bible does not have such issues. Also, the Bible says that you will know a genuine prophet from God because their profecies are acurate 100% of the time, because God doesn't make mistakes. Ooops. That's the first clue that Joseph Smith was not a prophet. You know about his prophecies that never materialized, right? Mormons also believe parts of the Bible, in so much as they "are translated correctly". You see the slippery slope here? Because the U.S. has a Biblical Christian Heritage, and most American's still claim to be "Christian", you can see why they have a hard time voting for a Mormon whose church has spent millions in advertising to convince the American public they are "Christians".

So back to the original point, YES a President's religion should matter in so much as it reflects his decision making capabilities. If he is able to subject his own life, own mind, own family to a faith that has innacurate foundations and is viewed as suspicious by a substantial number of people. What other decisions will he make without first comfirming a firm foundation?

All religions can be made to look irrational by those who disagree with them. You could draw up a list like that about a Catholic President, a Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or Evangelical one. But sorry to disappoint you, in all free countries in the world a man's religion is not a bar to a political career. Religion and politics do not mix, and no civilized nation in the world tries to mix them. That is especially true in the US, which is built from the ground up on the idea of the separation of church and state. If you want to live in a country in which a man’s political destiny is shaped by his religion, then you will have to go and live in a place like Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or Bahrain, where non-Muslims are effectively barred from politics—and not only non-Muslims, but a particular sect within Islam. In Iran, Sunnis, Baha’is, and other sects are barred from politics, not just Christians or Jews. In Saudi Arabia it is the other way round. The Shi’a and other sects are barred from politics, never mind about Jews or Christians. If you want to live in a country like that, that is where you should go, not try to turn the United States into that kind of a place.

Your opening paragraph is off topic. If you want to discuss the origins of the LDS Church, its Prophets or Mormon belief systems in general put these issues in their own topics.

This is not a good start for a new poster. Please re-read the board guidelines before posting again. -Ares

[zerinus]

Hi Zerinus. I understand what you are trying to say, most "religions" can be made to look irrational by their contrarians. Those religions you listed, however, all have hundreds/thousands of years of history. Muslims can trace back to Cain and Able, well at least in part (won't go into). The Jews the Old Testament, etc... The key difference between them all is what they do with Jesus, which is another issue of concern with Mormon Doctrine. Back to the history though, LDS is not even 200 years old and it's historical claims have repeatedly been proven non-existent. Egyptologists have repeatedly debunked the alleged writing on the tablets that could only be read through the golden spectacles. One of the things the Smithsonian also points out is that all evidence points to the earliest civilaztions in N.America came from north, and of a completely different race than what is claimed in mormon history. The Bible does not have such issues. Also, the Bible says that you will know a genuine prophet from God because their profecies are acurate 100% of the time, because God doesn't make mistakes. Ooops. That's the first clue that Joseph Smith was not a prophet. You know about his prophecies that never materialized, right? Mormons also believe parts of the Bible, in so much as they "are translated correctly". You see the slippery slope here? Because the U.S. has a Biblical Christian Heritage, and most American's still claim to be "Christian", you can see why they have a hard time voting for a Mormon whose church has spent millions in advertising to convince the American public they are "Christians".

I happen to believe that Mormonism is true, and your religion is Apostate. But I wouldn't try to prevent you from becoming a President of the United Stated if you have what it takes to become one, and do a good job of it.

So back to the original point, YES a President's religion should matter in so much as it reflects his decision making capabilities. If he is able to subject his own life, own mind, own family to a faith that has innacurate foundations and is viewed as suspicious by a substantial number of people. What other decisions will he make without first comfirming a firm foundation?

In that case then an Evangelical should definitely be barred from becoming the President of the United States. Anybody who is dumb enough to believe in such a corrupt, dead, Apostate religion isn't worthy to mow the lawn in the White House, never mind becoming the President of the United States!

Edited June 25, 2011 by zerinus

[thesometimesaint]

herestonewbeginnings:

Muslims trace their beginnings back to Abraham.

There are some 50,000 different Christian religions in the US alone. Many if not most have existed a far shorter time than the LDS. Also yours is a plea to presentism.

Funny how those lists of "proven nonexistant" claims get keeping shorter and shorter all the time. See http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

The LDS believe in Jesus. We believe he is part of the Godhead. He is our Lord and master.

He was the only person to ever live a sinless perfect life. That he took upon himself the sins of the world. That he died and was resurrected on the third day. We try to model our own lives after his perfect example. We are rightfully Christians albeit a different flavor than yours.

We believe the whole Bible. We just don't believe in the inerrancy of any man or manmade things. Tell me is Pi equal to exactly 3? That's what it says in the Bible. You tell me has Christ returned already? 2000 years is kinda of a long wait for us mere mortals.

For more false prophecies of the Bible See http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html

No Egyptologist has ever had the Golden Plates that were translated by Joseph Smith into the Book of Mormon. Just as no Egyptologist has ever had the Urim and Thummim as used by the Old Testament Prophets.

Until relatively recently no Vikings had ever been to the New World either. The Book of Mormon claims a small group found their way to a promised land. We believe that promised land was here on the western hemisphere. It is highly unlikely that a small goup of no more than 40 or so people would leave much of a trace. Especially with being subsumed in a much larger culture.

You grossly overstate the evidence for the Bible. There is absolutely no archaelogical evidence for anyone or any event prior to the kingship of David and even that is very limited evidence.

There is no archaelogical evidence for there even being a man called Jesus. Let alone no evidence outside of the Bible for any of the miracles that he perported did, and absolutely no archaelogical evidence for him being the Son of God.

So let's here one of Joseph Smiths purported false prophecies.

We give praise and honor to the US Constitution in our Scriptures. Which BTW specifically excludes ANY religious test for any public office. I guess the US for its first 180 odd years was too "Christian" a nation to have a Catholic President. Or is your bigotry more selective?

It hasn't stopped the good citizens of Nevada from voting for Harry Reid to be a US Senator, or George Romney(father of Mitt Romney) from being a Governor of Michigan. It didn't stop Barrack Obama from appointing Jon Huntsman as Embassador to China.

See http://famousmormons.net/pol.html .

Glad to see you so value the US Constitution that you are willing to trash it for your religious bigotry. :bad: . The US has had a couple of Quaker Presidents. Assuming you're not a Quaker. Should they have not been President simply because of their lack of correct religious decisions?

The firm foundation of this nation is the US Constitution, and even that has been Amended 27 times. All public offices are supported by oath to the Constitution not a religion.

Maybe the problem is you and your bigotry and not the LDS afterall.

[herestonewbeginnings]

Not off topic. Establishing the many faults in the foundation of the faith of Mormon Presidential candidates, thus hopefully helping to help you see why so many Americans are not comfortable voting for said candidates.

Hi Zerinus. I understand what you are trying to say, most "religions" can be made to look irrational by their contrarians. Those religions you listed, however, all have hundreds/thousands of years of history. Muslims can trace back to Cain and Able, well at least in part (won't go into). The Jews the Old Testament, etc... The key difference between them all is what they do with Jesus, which is another issue of concern with Mormon Doctrine. Back to the history though, LDS is not even 200 years old and it's historical claims have repeatedly been proven non-existent. Egyptologists have repeatedly debunked the alleged writing on the tablets that could only be read through the golden spectacles. One of the things the Smithsonian also points out is that all evidence points to the earliest civilaztions in N.America came from north, and of a completely different race than what is claimed in mormon history. The Bible does not have such issues. Also, the Bible says that you will know a genuine prophet from God because their profecies are acurate 100% of the time, because God doesn't make mistakes. Ooops. That's the first clue that Joseph Smith was not a prophet. You know about his prophecies that never materialized, right? Mormons also believe parts of the Bible, in so much as they "are translated correctly". You see the slippery slope here? Because the U.S. has a Biblical Christian Heritage, and most American's still claim to be "Christian", you can see why they have a hard time voting for a Mormon whose church has spent millions in advertising to convince the American public they are "Christians".

So back to the original point, YES a President's religion should matter in so much as it reflects his decision making capabilities. If he is able to subject his own life, own mind, own family to a faith that has innacurate foundations and is viewed as suspicious by a substantial number of people. What other decisions will he make without first comfirming a firm foundation?

Your opening paragraph is off topic. If you want to discuss the origins of the LDS Church, its Prophets or Mormon belief systems in general put these issues in their own topics.

This is not a good start for a new poster. Please re-read the board guidelines before posting again. -Ares

[Bernard Gui]

Not off topic. Establishing the many faults in the foundation of the faith of Mormon Presidential candidates, thus hopefully helping to help you see why so many Americans are not comfortable voting for said candidates.

What other religions would be on your No Vote list?

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

The Dogs Hold an Election

We don't think much of the white man's elections. Whoever wins, we Indians always lose. Well, we have

a little story about elections.

Once a long time ago, the dogs were trying to elect a president. so one of them got up in the big dog

convention and said: "I nominate the bulldog for president. He's strong. He can fight."

"But he can't run," said another dog. "What good is a fighter who can't run? He won't catch anybody."

Then another dog got up and said: "I nominate the greyhound, because he sure can run."

But the other dogs cried: "Naw, he can run all right, but he can't fight. When he catches up with somebody,

what happens then? He gets the h*** beaten out of him, that's what! So all he's good for is running away."

Then an ugly little mutt jumped up and said: "I nominate that dog for president who smells good underneath

his tail." And immediately an equally ugly mutt jumped up and yelled: "I second the motion."

At once all the dogs started sniffing underneath each other's tails. A big chorus went up:

"Phew, he doesn't smell good under his tail."

"No, neither does this one."

"He's no presidential timber!

"No, he's no good, either."

"This one sure isn't the people's choice!"

"Wow, this one ain't my candidate!"

So, when you go out for a walk, just watch the dogs. They're still sniffing under each other's tails.

They're looking for a good leader, and they still haven't found him."

Told by Lame Deer at Winner, South Dakota, 1969

American Indian Myths and Legends, Richard Erdoes and Alfonso Ortiz, eds., New York, Pantheon, 1984.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Nathair/|\]

The Dogs Hold an Election

We don't think much of the white man's elections. Whoever wins, we Indians always lose. Well, we have

a little story about elections.

Once a long time ago, the dogs were trying to elect a president. so one of them got up in the big dog

convention and said: "I nominate the bulldog for president. He's strong. He can fight."

"But he can't run," said another dog. "What good is a fighter who can't run? He won't catch anybody."

Then another dog got up and said: "I nominate the greyhound, because he sure can run."

But the other dogs cried: "Naw, he can run all right, but he can't fight. When he catches up with somebody,

what happens then? He gets the h*** beaten out of him, that's what! So all he's good for is running away."

Then an ugly little mutt jumped up and said: "I nominate that dog for president who smells good underneath

his tail." And immediately an equally ugly mutt jumped up and yelled: "I second the motion."

At once all the dogs started sniffing underneath each other's tails. A big chorus went up:

"Phew, he doesn't smell good under his tail."

"No, neither does this one."

"He's no presidential timber!

"No, he's no good, either."

"This one sure isn't the people's choice!"

"Wow, this one ain't my candidate!"

So, when you go out for a walk, just watch the dogs. They're still sniffing under each other's tails.

They're looking for a good leader, and they still haven't found him."

Told by Lame Deer at Winner, South Dakota, 1969

American Indian Myths and Legends, Richard Erdoes and Alfonso Ortiz, eds., New York, Pantheon, 1984.

HOW THE WREN BECAME KING OF THE BIRDS

A LONG, long time ago, before you and I were born, the birds of the air gathered at Tynwald from all airts of the wind. The meeting was to settle once and for all the squabbling and fighting among them as to which of them was the cleverest, and it was agreed that the cleverest bird should be king. The sky was black with them, big and little, and soon all had gathered together. Everywhere groups of birds sat-a-row, cooishing, scolding, or sleeping. Some were in fine, black Sunday coats like old Parson Gull, some clad only in work-a-day brown like Poor Brownie, the Hedge Sparrow; but most wore leggings of red or yellow, while the Chough had a new pair of bright red ones. Yellow Tommy, the dandy, was preening himself, swinging on the top of a gorse bush. Old Greyback, the Crow, perched on a rock above him, silent but observant, was eating flitters; and over all, the blue arch of the sky, in which hung motionless a broad-winged eagle.

The Corncrake officially announced, 'Raip, raip' (ready, ready). Then each one got up in his turn to tell of all the great things he could do. The Falcon boasted that he and his mate were worth the kingdom of Mann with all its rights; Lhondoo, the Thrush, sang her best to them -it was a pleasure to listen to her, and for a moment she thought that she would be elected; Flame of the Wood, the Goldfinch, spread her bright plumage; Fork of the Wind, the Swallow, told of her swiftness and travels to warm countries in the south; the Curlew, of her riches-' Let the curlew be poor or fat, she carries a groat upon her back,'said she, showing the mark of which she bears. When the Cuckoo got up, the Meadow Pipit darted out from a group and danced round, calling out his name to draw attention to himself, the little fool, and saying, ' Let every bird hatch her own eggs,' so poor Cuckoo wasn't heard. There was a loud-voiced dispute between the Magpie and the jackdaw as to which was the best thief. At last little jinny Wren got up to have her say, after all the grand ones had done. 'Ha, ha, ha,' laughed the Snipe, and all the birds chuckled; but jinny Wren got the better of them for all that. Says she:

Small though I am and slender my leg,

Twelve chicks I can bring out of the egg.

And the birds agreed that Jinny was as clever again as the best of them. But the eagle didn't like it that a little bit of a bird like Jinny Wren should be over him. So he considered for a minute, and says he, middling vexed: 'Birds, it's only right that the best bird on the wing should be king; let's try a heat to see which of us can go the highest.' Hullad, the Owl, looked thoughtful, and said: 'I never saw anything yet worth flying for.' But the birds, said: "Deed, it wouldn't be a bad idea at all.' No sooner said than done. jinny Diver, the Cormorant, gave the whistle to fly, and instantly off they started. Speeding on great strong wings, the eagle led the way, the little ones following, Pompee-ny-Hoam, Fat bird of the barley, straggling far in the rear. But the Seven Sleepers, the Bat, the Stonechat, Cooag the Cuckoo, and the others, didn't stir-the sleep had fallen on them. The Eagle flew up and up and away, away to'the sun, till he couldn't lift a feather an inch higher. Then he peered down into the blue to the birds far, far below, and he let a scream out of him:

' Ta raish Ree ny Ein, Ree ny Ein.'

'I am King of the Birds, King of the Birds.*'

But little Jinny Wren was one too many for him there again. She had taken tight hold of him by a feather under his great, broad wing and hidden herself. And as he cried 'Ta mish Ree ny Ein,' she flew on top of his head and called out, 'Cha nel, cha nel, ta mish er-y-skyn.'

'Not so, not so, I'm above him, I'm above him.'

Down dropped the Eagle, and down dropped the Wren. breathless, but King of the Birds.

And that's why the boys go round on St. Stephen's Day to this day, singing:

The Wren, the Wren, the King of all Birds,

We've caught St. Stephen's Day in the gorse,

Though he's small his family is many.

We pray you, good woman, give us a drop to drink.

(Manx folk tale)

Edited June 25, 2011 by Nathair

[Bernard Gui]

The Wren, the Wren, the King of all Birds,

We've caught St. Stephen's Day in the gorse,

Though he's small his family is many.

We pray you, good woman, give us a drop to drink.

(Manx folk tale)

"Why did you steal the sheep?" asked Tiffany.

"We are famously stealin' folk, Aren't we, lads? said Rob Anybody. "Whut's it we're famous for?"

"Stealin'!" shouted the little blue men.

"And what else, lads?"

"Fightin'!"

"And what else?"

"Drinkin'!"

"And what else?"

There was a certain amount of thought about this, but they all reached the same conclusion.

"Drinkin' and fightin'!"

"And there was summat else, muttered Rob Anybody. "Ach, yes, Tell the hag, lads!"

"Stealin' an' drinkin' an' fightin'!" shouted the blue men cheerfully.

"Tell the wee hag who we are, lads," said Rob Anybody.

There was the scrape of many small swords being drawn and thrust into the air.

"Nac Mac Feegle! The Wee Free Men! Nae king! Nae quin! Nae laird! Nae master! We willna be fooled again!"

The Wee Free Men by Terry Pratchett

Edited June 25, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Nathair/|\]

"Why did you steal the sheep?" asked Tiffany.

"We are famously stealin' folk, Aren't we, lads? said Rob Anybody. Whut's it we're famous for?

"Stealin'!" shouted the little blue men.

"And what else, lads?"

"Fightin'!"

"And what else?"

"Drinkin'!"

"And what else?"

There was a certain amount of thought about this, but they all reached the same conclusion.

"Drinkin' and fightin'!"

"And there was summat else, muttered Rob Anybody. "Ach, yes, Tell the hag, lads!"

"Stealin' an' drinkin' an' fightin'!" shouted the blue men cheerfully.

"Tell the wee hag who we are, lads," said Rob Anybody.

There was the scrape of many small swords being drawn and thrust into the air.

"Nac Mac Feegle! The Wee Free Men! Nae king! Nae quin! Nae laird! Nae master! We willna be fooled again!"

The Wee Free Men by Terry Pratchett

Awesome Diskworld reference. My library doesn't have that one.

[Bernard Gui]

Awesome Diskworld reference. My library doesn't have that one.

D'ya ken the Nac Mac Feegle?

Bernard

Edited June 25, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Nathair/|\]

D'ya ken the Nac Mac Feegle?

Bernard

Peripherally. I haven't been able to get ahold of any of the books they are in, but I have seen descriptions of them. I'd like to see a sequel to Small Gods. Other than that, my favorite so far is Thud.

[herestonewbeginnings]

thesometimessaint

You don't like the facts I've shared, thus, that makes me a "bigot". I apologize for hurting your feelings, but Hmmm, where do we see this type of dodging in our culture today? Let's see, if you don't agree with homosexuality, you are a "homophobe", a "hater", "intolerant", etc... Or, if you don't like the policies of this current administration, you are considered a "racist". When millions of Americans will clearly not vote for a Mormon, that makes them all "bigots"??? Nevermind all the reasons WHY people are so uncomfortable voting for a Mormon.

Don't get me wrong. Mormons are some of the nicest people one could hope to meet. Part of that may be due, in part, to the heavy emphasis on works oriented salvation vs. trusting that the work Christ did on the cross was MORE than ENOUGH. Thus, your good works will come out of a response to Christ's goodness, vs. doing good works to earn your savlation. See the difference?

50,000 Christian "religions" in the U.S.? Really? Do tell. There are many denominations, but "religions"? You lost me on that one.

Mormon Jesus vs. Biblical Jesus: The Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus of the Bible: Was Jesus born out of a physical sexual relationship that God had with Mary? OH LITTLE TOWN OF BETHLEHEM must drive you nuts because Mormons believe he was not born there as clearly stated in the Holy Bible (Alma 7:9-10 says Jerusalem). Jesus is out of the lineage of DAVID, not BENJAMIN. Mormon Jesus is the brother of SATAN, contrary to scriptures. Mormon Jesus was/is married to many wives. Not Biblical Jesus, nor are we married in Heaven. Mormon Trinity is <EM>3 seperate gods</EM>, not all being one God as scripture makes clear. Mormon Jesus was created and has a beginning, not Biblical Jesus, he always has been.

One of the biggest issues with the Mormon Jesus is really an insult to Christ. Read Journal of Discourses Vol 3, pg.247, 1856. Jesus atoned for our sins on the cross, only partially. He was unable to atone for all our sins. Wow! Saying that the Son of God was unable to achieve what God asked him to do... blasphemy, unbiblical, want no part of it my friend. Also, saying that salvation is only achieved by believing also that Joe Smith was God's prophet (Doctrine of Salvation Vol 1, pg. 188) contradicts Christ saying I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, THE LIFE. NO MAN COMES TO FATHER EXPCEPT THROUGH....who?......CHRIST JESUS. The Mormon Jesus never mentioned the critical passover. Biblical Jesus told his disciples of the passover. Mormon Jesus' church failed, but was restored by Joe Smith. Biblical Jesus built his church and it would exist FOR ALL TIME. (Matt 16:18) Why don't Mormons worship Jesus, and pray to Jesus, instead to "god", "heavenly father", thus again minimizing who the Jesus of the Bible truly is. GOD.

No evidence of Christs existence outside of the Bible? Ancient writings and artifacts of the following would beg to differ: Flavius Josephus (Jewish Historian AD 70), Plenius Secundus(Govenor in Asia Minor AD112),Cornelius Tacitus (Gov of Asia aD 116), Gius Setunious Tranquillus, Lucian (AD 170), or The Talmud (collection of Jewish history/traditions from that era). The Talmud also noted Jesus was trying to lead Isreal astray with his "sourcery". i.e. Christ's unexplanable miracles are mentioned outside of the Bible.

"There is absolutely no archaelogical evidence for anyone or any event prior to the kingship of David..." Hmmm, did the great flood happen before the time of David? Mesopotamians, Egyptians, and Greeks all report a flood in primordial times. A Sumerian king list from c. 2100 divides itself into two categories: those kings who ruled before a great flood and those who ruled after it. Even the Epic of Gilgamesh notes the great flood. What about the Nuzi Tablets? The some 20,000 cuneiform clay tablets discovered at the ruins of Nuzi, east of the Tigris River. 1500 reveal institutions, practices, and customs remarkably congruent to those found in Genesis. These tablets include treaties, marriage arrangements, rules regarding inheritance, adoption, and the like. Also, all the chariot pieces that were found in the Red Sea, just a coincidence of course.

Also, in 1906, archeologists found evidence to support the Genesis mention of Hittites. Which, later in history king DAVID slept with Bathsheba, wife of a Hitite. In addition to Jericho, places such as Haran, Hazor, Dan, Megiddo, Shechem, Samaria, Shiloh, Gezer, Gibeah, Beth Shemesh, Beth Shean, Beersheba, Lachish, and many other urban sites have been excavated, quite apart from such larger and obvious locations as Jerusalem or Babylon. Too much Biblical Archeological evidence to place in this forum my friend. Shoot, I remember hearing on the news just a year or two ago about an aqueduct that was discovered that was in the Bible, but thought to be non-existent.

Some of the false prophecies of Joseph Smith: (Keep in mind that Duet. 18:20-22 says if what a "prophet" says does not come to pass, that prophet is not of the Lord.)

1.) Read in full context the History of the Church Vol 2, page 189. He claimed Jesus would return within 56 years. When 1891 passed, his prophecy was proven false.

2.) Joe aslo said the temple would be built within his generation in the western boundaries of Missouri (Independence area).(Doctrines and Covenants 84:2-5;31) Oops, they were driven out in 1833.

3.) Joe prophecied on 12/27/1832 that the earth with tremble and the sun go dark in just a few days. Ooops.

4.) Pearl of Great Price says that Joe said that Isaiah 11:6-9 was about to be fullfilled. Last I noticed, this has not yet been fulfilled. The wolf is not dwelling with the lamb, the calf and the lion are not together, nor are the cow and bear grazing together. The lion is not eating straw like an ox. Nursing children are not playing in the dens of cobras.

This is quite the lengthy response, and I apologize for my unpatient attitude at the beginning of this reply. As I lay out these details, it's actually heart breaking to realize how many have been deceived by the father of lies. None of what I have to say will probably change your beliefs, nor is that the objective. The pride of man often prevents his heart from being open. Only the work of the Holy Spirit can soften a man's heart towards the good news of the inspired word of God. I can't do that, but I can rely upon doctrine that is built upon a firm foundation, vs. one that contradicts scripture, minimizes Christ, and just arrived on the scene less than 200 years ago via a controvertial figure with questionable character (according to accounts of those that knew Joseph Sr. and Jr., and recorded affidavits).

All this was meant to originally help shed some light on why many Americans and most Christians are uncomfortable with a Mormon as the head decision maker for our nation.

herestonewbeginnings:

Muslims trace their beginnings back to Abraham.

There are some 50,000 different Christian religions in the US alone. Many if not most have existed a far shorter time than the LDS. Also yours is a plea to presentism.

Funny how those lists of "proven nonexistant" claims get keeping shorter and shorter all the time. See http://www.jefflinds...Evidences.shtml

The LDS believe in Jesus. We believe he is part of the Godhead. He is our Lord and master.

He was the only person to ever live a sinless perfect life. That he took upon himself the sins of the world. That he died and was resurrected on the third day. We try to model our own lives after his perfect example. We are rightfully Christians albeit a different flavor than yours.

We believe the whole Bible. We just don't believe in the inerrancy of any man or manmade things. Tell me is Pi equal to exactly 3? That's what it says in the Bible. You tell me has Christ returned already? 2000 years is kinda of a long wait for us mere mortals.

For more false prophecies of the Bible See http://skepticsannot...proph/long.html

No Egyptologist has ever had the Golden Plates that were translated by Joseph Smith into the Book of Mormon. Just as no Egyptologist has ever had the Urim and Thummim as used by the Old Testament Prophets.

Until relatively recently no Vikings had ever been to the New World either. The Book of Mormon claims a small group found their way to a promised land. We believe that promised land was here on the western hemisphere. It is highly unlikely that a small goup of no more than 40 or so people would leave much of a trace. Especially with being subsumed in a much larger culture.

You grossly overstate the evidence for the Bible. There is absolutely no archaelogical evidence for anyone or any event prior to the kingship of David and even that is very limited evidence.

There is no archaelogical evidence for there even being a man called Jesus. Let alone no evidence outside of the Bible for any of the miracles that he perported did, and absolutely no archaelogical evidence for him being the Son of God.

So let's here one of Joseph Smiths purported false prophecies.

We give praise and honor to the US Constitution in our Scriptures. Which BTW specifically excludes ANY religious test for any public office. I guess the US for its first 180 odd years was too "Christian" a nation to have a Catholic President. Or is your bigotry more selective?

It hasn't stopped the good citizens of Nevada from voting for Harry Reid to be a US Senator, or George Romney(father of Mitt Romney) from being a Governor of Michigan. It didn't stop Barrack Obama from appointing Jon Huntsman as Embassador to China.

See http://famousmormons.net/pol.html .

Glad to see you so value the US Constitution that you are willing to trash it for your religious bigotry. :bad: . The US has had a couple of Quaker Presidents. Assuming you're not a Quaker. Should they have not been President simply because of their lack of correct religious decisions?

The firm foundation of this nation is the US Constitution, and even that has been Amended 27 times. All public offices are supported by oath to the Constitution not a religion.

Maybe the problem is you and your bigotry and not the LDS afterall.

[Nathair/|\]

htnb,

If that many people in America actually believe those misrepresentations about us, this country is in worse shape than even I thought. How tragic that even one person should think that way.

[Bernard Gui]

Peripherally. I haven't been able to get ahold of any of the books they are in, but I have seen descriptions of them. I'd like to see a sequel to Small Gods. Other than that, my favorite so far is Thud.

Peripherally. The Nac Mac Feegle rock! Thud is fantastic.

Interesting Times, Soul Music, Thief of Times, The Fifth Elephant!!!!

Ah heck. They're all great.

And now back to the main feature.

Bernard

Edited June 25, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

All this was meant to originally help shed some light on why many Americans and most Christians are uncomfortable with a Mormon as the head decision maker for our nation.

Sounds like you would only vote for a fundamentalist Protestant candidate. Is that correct?

The Gallup poll says 20% would not vote for a Mormon. Are you saying that "most" Christians make up less than

20% of the population?

BTW, every one of your objections has been dealt with multiple times here, and you can find appropriate

LDS responses to them at the FAIR website...that is, if your mind is open to looking at an answer.

Bernard

Edited June 25, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[TAO]

You don't like the facts I've shared, thus, that makes me a "bigot". I apologize for hurting your feelings, but Hmmm, where do we see this type of dodging in our culture today? Let's see, if you don't agree with homosexuality, you are a "homophobe", a "hater", "intolerant", etc... Or, if you don't like the policies of this current administration, you are considered a "racist". When millions of Americans will clearly not vote for a Mormon, that makes them all "bigots"??? Nevermind all the reasons WHY people are so uncomfortable voting for a Mormon.

Of course, you are not a bigot, we apologize for that. But let me respond to the other things you say.

Don't get me wrong. Mormons are some of the nicest people one could hope to meet. Part of that may be due, in part, to the heavy emphasis on works oriented salvation vs. trusting that the work Christ did on the cross was MORE than ENOUGH. Thus, your good works will come out of a response to Christ's goodness, vs. doing good works to earn your savlation. See the difference?

My friend, the work Christ did on the cross wasn't all Christ did. "The sick he healed, the dead he raised, good works were his, his name be praised." (from the hymn). And most importantly of all, he rose from the dead.

But you are not correct if you think all his work was on the cross. Yes, the cross was the most important event in his life, but it was not the only one he was required to do in order to get things right. He had to be right from beginning to end. It was more than that, much more than that =).

You really should not object to our works. James, for example, really liked works. He said, "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." No, our works do not devalue what Christ did on the cross. In fact, they make us realize how valuable it is. Christ did good works, and so we should feel responsible to follow him, and do such also. That is what to be truly Christian is - to follow Christ =). Let us not worry about faith v. works and vise versa, but instead focus on following Christ, the true and ultimate goal of this life.

50,000 Christian "religions" in the U.S.? Really? Do tell. There are many denominations, but "religions"? You lost me on that one.

In other words, church's that classify them self as independent, is what I believe he was saying.

Mormon Jesus vs. Biblical Jesus: The Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus of the Bible: Was Jesus born out of a physical sexual relationship that God had with Mary? OH LITTLE TOWN OF BETHLEHEM must drive you nuts because Mormons believe he was not born there as clearly stated in the Holy Bible (Alma 7:9-10 says Jerusalem). Jesus is out of the lineage of DAVID, not BENJAMIN. Mormon Jesus is the brother of SATAN, contrary to scriptures. Mormon Jesus was/is married to many wives. Not Biblical Jesus, nor are we married in Heaven. Mormon Trinity is <EM>3 seperate gods</EM>, not all being one God as scripture makes clear. Mormon Jesus was created and has a beginning, not Biblical Jesus, he always has been.

For your 1st statement, that is an opinion, and it's an opinion that isn't fully agreed upon by all people.

Second of all, did you know that 'Jerusalem' in the Book of Mormon includes all of the surrounding areas. Thus, Jerusalem doesn't only refer to the city. You can see other verses on this, as well, if I believe.

Third, where'd ya get Jesus coming out of the lineage of Benjamin exactly? As far as I recall, we never state that.

Fourth, where does it say Jesus is not the brother of Satan? Are we not all brothers and sisters? In the same aspect, so are we brothers and sisters of Jesus ourself. He has become our father through the resurrection.

Fifth, Jesus in the Bible never says he is or isn't married.

Sixth, if ya look in many places in the Bible, it talks about Jesus and HF seperately. So yes, the Godhood is three Gods. However, it can also be called 'God' at the same time, referring to all three. Thus, the scriptures don't really contradict.

Seventh of all, nah, in our scriptures, Jesus doesn't have a beginning. See intelligences v. spirits v. physical bodies.

Now ultimately, my friend... you need to do some more research before you try and decide what we think.

It would do you good to talk with Mormons on these things, because they will give you different impressions than wherever you get your info will give you. It is not right to say someone does things they don't do, so spend some time getting to know some Mormons to learn what they really think about these things, and you will find things are different than they seem =).

One of the biggest issues with the Mormon Jesus is really an insult to Christ. Read Journal of Discourses Vol 3, pg.247, 1856. Jesus atoned for our sins on the cross, only partially. He was unable to atone for all our sins.

First of all, just so you know, this is a Biblical concept.

Matthew 12:31, for instance, says "the ^bblasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall ^cnot be forgiven unto men." Christ atoned for our sins, but for that one, we will not be forgiven, for that one, even if he atoned for it, we must suffer the punishment of it. This is gone over in more detail in Hebrews. It states, "For if we ^asin ^bwilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery ^aindignation, which shall devour the adversaries." Thus, when we do this... it is called denying the Holy Ghost... we lose the capability to repent.

As for in terms of murder and forgiveness - I believe it is an extension of our covenant, once we have enough knowledge. Murder can be forgiven, but it is very hard to be forgiven... and near impossible for those in knowledge.

Wow! Saying that the Son of God was unable to achieve what God asked him to do... blasphemy, unbiblical, want no part of it my friend.

Jesus didn't say he'd atone for such. In fact, he said the contrary. Again, Matthew 12:31-32.

Also, saying that salvation is only achieved by believing also that Joe Smith was God's prophet (Doctrine of Salvation Vol 1, pg. 188)

You are using a book that is outdated, just so ya' know. You should look at the other volumes.

contradicts Christ saying I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, THE LIFE. NO MAN COMES TO FATHER EXPCEPT THROUGH....who?......CHRIST JESUS.

Secondly... you do not understand the meaning of salvation int he way he stated it. Salvation means something different to Mormons than it means to those of other religions.

Thirdly, you don't account that people have chances after this life as well.

The Mormon Jesus never mentioned the critical passover. Biblical Jesus told his disciples of the passover.

Read 3rd Nephi. It's there... and it's even more... sacred than the other one, it certain ways.

Mormon Jesus' church failed, but was restored by Joe Smith. Biblical Jesus built his church and it would exist FOR ALL TIME. (Matt 16:18)

First of all, it did not fail. Things that are already planned can't be considered failures, can they?

Second of all, did you know that at least one fall will be necessary before the second coming. Whether it has or hasn't happened yet is still uncertain to some, but we believe it has. It is stated in Thessalonians, actually. It says "That ye be not soon shaken in mind, ^aor be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by ^bletter as from us, as that the ^cday of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: ^afor that day shall not come, except there come a ^bfalling away first, and that ^cman of ^dsin be revealed, the son of perdition;"

So yes, a fall is necessary. A falling away will or has happened. God's church will still succeed though.

Why don't Mormons worship Jesus, and pray to Jesus, instead to "god", "heavenly father", thus again minimizing who the Jesus of the Bible truly is. GOD.

Because Jesus asked us to. D&C 18:40 says, "And you shall fall down and ^aworship the Father in my ^bname." Thus, we do it. Furthermore, in a certain section of 3rd Nephi, it explains why Jesus excuses us worshiping him, at certain times, even though we should be worshiping the Father in the name of Christ instead =).

No evidence of Christs existence outside of the Bible? Ancient writings and artifacts of the following would beg to differ: Flavius Josephus (Jewish Historian AD 70), Plenius Secundus(Govenor in Asia Minor AD112),Cornelius Tacitus (Gov of Asia aD 116), Gius Setunious Tranquillus, Lucian (AD 170), or The Talmud (collection of Jewish history/traditions from that era). The Talmud also noted Jesus was trying to lead Isreal astray with his "sourcery". i.e. Christ's unexplanable miracles are mentioned outside of the Bible.

Why would we think Christ doesn't exist out of the Bible? He exists in the Book of Mormon, as well as in many other books =D. He is everywhere =).

"There is absolutely no archaelogical evidence for anyone or any event prior to the kingship of David..." Hmmm, did the great flood happen before the time of David? Mesopotamians, Egyptians, and Greeks all report a flood in primordial times. A Sumerian king list from c. 2100 divides itself into two categories: those kings who ruled before a great flood and those who ruled after it. Even the Epic of Gilgamesh notes the great flood. What about the Nuzi Tablets? The some 20,000 cuneiform clay tablets discovered at the ruins of Nuzi, east of the Tigris River. 1500 reveal institutions, practices, and customs remarkably congruent to those found in Genesis. These tablets include treaties, marriage arrangements, rules regarding inheritance, adoption, and the like. Also, all the chariot pieces that were found in the Red Sea, just a coincidence of course.

TheSometimesSaint is talking about proof, rather than evidence. For example, until recently, we weren't able to assert that horses lived natively in the Americas, and yet, now according to some new research, they do. We had evidences for a long time, but they weren't enough to do things with them.

(continues in the next post, sorry for the long post =P)

Edited June 25, 2011 by TAO

[TAO]

(continuation from previous post =P)

Also, in 1906, archeologists found evidence to support the Genesis mention of Hittites. Which, later in history king DAVID slept with Bathsheba, wife of a Hitite. In addition to Jericho, places such as Haran, Hazor, Dan, Megiddo, Shechem, Samaria, Shiloh, Gezer, Gibeah, Beth Shemesh, Beth Shean, Beersheba, Lachish, and many other urban sites have been excavated, quite apart from such larger and obvious locations as Jerusalem or Babylon. Too much Biblical Archeological evidence to place in this forum my friend. Shoot, I remember hearing on the news just a year or two ago about an aqueduct that was discovered that was in the Bible, but thought to be non-existent.

TheSometimesSaint is talking about references to the evidences of the historicity of the events of Genesis, among other things. Including the creation of the world, among other things. You should probably talk to him about this.

Some of the false prophecies of Joseph Smith: (Keep in mind that Duet. 18:20-22 says if what a "prophet" says does not come to pass, that prophet is not of the Lord.)

1.) Read in full context the History of the Church Vol 2, page 189. He claimed Jesus would return within 56 years. When 1891 passed, his prophecy was proven false.

Ok, we have heard this one so commonly that it is annoying to hear it. People who claim this are reading too much into the passage meaning the second coming, and not some other visit. Reread it.

2.) Joe aslo said the temple would be built within his generation in the western boundaries of Missouri (Independence area).(Doctrines and Covenants 84:2-5;31) Oops, they were driven out in 1833.

Reread it. It's a commandment, not a prophecy.

3.) Joe prophecied on 12/27/1832 that the earth with tremble and the sun go dark in just a few days. Ooops.

Call for Reference, please. Thanks =).

4.) Pearl of Great Price says that Joe said that Isaiah 11:6-9 was about to be fullfilled. Last I noticed, this has not yet been fulfilled. The wolf is not dwelling with the lamb, the calf and the lion are not together, nor are the cow and bear grazing together. The lion is not eating straw like an ox. Nursing children are not playing in the dens of cobras.

Of course it hasn't happened yet. And yet Jesus was said to come 'soon' years and years before that happened the first time. You need to be more patient. God's time isn't like our time. We are in the last days, but we don't know when it will end; only that we should be prepared for it to happen soon.

This is quite the lengthy response, and I apologize for my unpatient attitude at the beginning of this reply.

I hope you excuse my long reply to yours as well.

As I lay out these details, it's actually heart breaking to realize how many have been deceived by the father of lies.

*shrugs* I know what I know, and I know I haven't been decieved.

None of what I have to say will probably change your beliefs, nor is that the objective. The pride of man often prevents his heart from being open.

Although this could be, it also comes from knowledge and faith. Pride has always been something I struggled with. But in this case, no, that is not why.

Only the work of the Holy Spirit can soften a man's heart towards the good news of the inspired word of God. I can't do that, but I can rely upon doctrine that is built upon a firm foundation, vs. one that contradicts scripture, minimizes Christ, and just arrived on the scene less than 200 years ago via a controvertial figure with questionable character (according to accounts of those that knew Joseph Sr. and Jr., and recorded affidavits).

My friend, it is not Christ's doctrine to contend one with another. I am pretty sure God would want you to be milder with your criticisms of other people. You'd have to ask him on that, but he is very admonishing on that in terms of me. He expects me to be mild.

All this was meant to originally help shed some light on why many Americans and most Christians are uncomfortable with a Mormon as the head decision maker for our nation.

I'm sorry, but I must say, I don't think it really did a good job. First off, most people do not know much about these things. Also, even if they do, most of them go to a Mormon and ask them about it. That leaves a good portion of the people having different reasons for not voting for Mormons, other than the things you listed. It isn't really for me to change someone's vote though, I will answer those who ask, but that is all, it is not my job to bother them over votes, the church is much more important than that.

I hope you have a wonderful evening, and seriously, take up my offer and learn some new things about the LDS church. Those websites are not serving you very well, I hate to say it =P.

Best Wishes,

TAO =)

Edited June 25, 2011 by TAO

[why me]

I think that mormons are finding themselves in the same position that catholics were in the 1950's in American politics. It took Kennedy to break the anticatholic mold. Mormons will fare similiarly when the time is right for a mormon candidate for the presidency. I think that the country has come a long way from fours years ago when fears were raised by Huckabee.

I would vote for a mormon if I were agreement with most of their policies. Being mormon and a politician is not a surety for just christian policies.

[DH]

D'ya ken the Nac Mac Feegle?

Bernard

I'm a big fan of Tiffany Aching and the Nac Mac Feegle. Such fun!