Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mormonism: What the Latter Day Saints think of Islam [Indicator of how Mitt perceives Islam?]
Pakistan Independent ^ | Feb. 7, 2012

Posted on 02/08/2012 3:57:00 PM PST by Colofornian

Brigham Youg University has the largest library of books on Muslims scholars. It has been in the forefront of taking old books and translating them into English and publishing them. The Morman are call themselves the Church of Christ and Latter Day Saints–believing that there are prophets after Jesus Christ. The Mormons are Unitarians and reject Trinity. The LDS position on Islam can be found in an August 2000 article by James Toronto, entitled “A Latter-day Saint Perspective on Muhammad,” from Ensign—the church’s flagship monthly magazine.

In the clearest and most complete elucidation of its position on Muslims, Toronto, the Book of Mormon says that “the Lord has provided spiritual light to guide and enrich [the peoples of the nations’] lives” and that “Prophet Joseph Smith often expounded on the theme of the universality of God’s love and the related need to remain open to all available sources of light and knowledge.” Based on these doctrines, “church leaders continually have encouraged members to foster amicable relations with people of other faiths by acknowledging the spiritual truth they possess….”

The LDS’s Toronto says that “as early as 1855, at a time when Christian literature generally ridiculed Muhammad as the Antichrist and the archenemy of Western civilization, Elders George A. Smith (1817-75) and Parley P. Pratt (1807-57) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles delivered lengthy sermons demonstrating and accurate and balanced understanding of Islamic history and speaking highly of Muhammad’s leadership.” In fact “Elder Pratt went on to express his admiration for Muhammad’s teachings, asserting that ‘upon the whole,…[Muslims] have better morals and better institutions than many Christian nations.’”

The current LDS First Presidency Statement of 1978 says specifically mentions Prophet Muhammad as one of ‘the great religious leaders of the world’ who received ‘a portion of God’s light….’”

Toronto further elucidates:

“Contrary to Western civilization’s stereotype of Muhammad as a false prophet or enemy of Christians, Muslim sources portray a man of unfailing humility, kindness, good humor, generosity, and simple tastes.” Toronto does find a few points on which Mormons and Muslims disagree—such as “Islamic teachings that deny the divinity of Jesus Christ” and “the need for modern prophets”—but then engages in massive cognitive dissonance by stating that he is grateful to “belong to a church that affirms the truths taught by Muhammad….”


TOPICS: Ecumenism; Islam; Other non-Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: inman; islam; lds; mormon; muslim; romney4911mosque; romney4islam; romney4sharia; romneyvsamerica; wehatemormons; wehatemuslims
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-111 next last
From the article: The LDS’s Toronto says that “as early as 1855, at a time when Christian literature generally ridiculed Muhammad as the Antichrist and the archenemy of Western civilization, Elders George A. Smith (1817-75) and Parley P. Pratt (1807-57) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles delivered lengthy sermons demonstrating and accurate and balanced understanding of Islamic history and speaking highly of Muhammad’s leadership.” In fact “Elder Pratt went on to express his admiration for Muhammad’s teachings, asserting that ‘upon the whole,…[Muslims] have better morals and better institutions than many Christian nations.’” The current LDS First Presidency Statement of 1978 says specifically mentions Prophet Muhammad as one of ‘the great religious leaders of the world’ who received ‘a portion of God’s light….’”

From the article: Toronto further elucidates: “Contrary to Western civilization’s stereotype of Muhammad as a false prophet or enemy of Christians, Muslim sources portray a man of unfailing humility, kindness, good humor, generosity, and simple tastes.

Ah. The religion of Mitt Romney and the type of foreign policy he will bring to dealing with Islam internationally

1 posted on 02/08/2012 3:57:12 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBTPZxRcD0I&feature=related


2 posted on 02/08/2012 4:04:38 PM PST by Tennessee Nana (Why should I vote for Romney when he hates me because I am a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

place marker


3 posted on 02/08/2012 4:05:19 PM PST by svcw (Only difference between Romney & BH is one thinks he will be god & other one thinks he already is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
LDS First Presidency Statement of 1978 says specifically mentions Prophet Muhammad as one of ‘the great religious leaders of the world’ who received ‘a portion of God’s light"............

throw up in toilet Pictures, Images and Photos

4 posted on 02/08/2012 4:10:46 PM PST by svcw (Only difference between Romney & BH is one thinks he will be god & other one thinks he already is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Frankly, until after 911 and the jihadi war becoming so completely undeniable, I was inclined to a much more benign view of Islam.

I lived a year in Saudi, made it a point to read the Koran while I was there, and despite the rather unloveable things I knew were true, I was prepared accept the “three great monotheistic religions” view of Islam.

No longer. I now subscribe to the “false prophet of Revelations” view of Islam. I subscribe to the “muslim world as graveyard of civilizations” view.


5 posted on 02/08/2012 4:12:41 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

I Will Be a Second Mohammed

In the heat of the Missouri “Mormon War” of 1838, Joseph Smith made the following claim, “I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us—‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’ ”[1]

It is most interesting that a self-proclaimed Christian prophet would liken himself to Mohammed, the founder of Islam. His own comparison invites us to take a closer look as well. And when we do, we find some striking—and troubling—parallels. Consider the following.

Mohammed and Joseph Smith both had humble beginnings. Neither had formal religious connections or upbringing, and both were relatively uneducated. Both founded new religions by creating their own scriptures. In fact, followers of both prophets claim these scriptures are miracles since their authors were the most simple and uneducated of men.[2]

Both prophets claim of having angel visitations, and of receiving divine revelation to restore pure religion to the earth again. Mohammed was told that both Jews and Christians had long since corrupted their scriptures and religion. In like manner, Joseph Smith was told that all of Christianity had become corrupt, and that consequently the Bible itself was no longer reliable.

In both cases, this corruption required a complete restoration of both scripture and religion. Nothing which preceded either prophet could be relied upon any longer. Both prophets claim they were used of God to restore eternal truths which once existed on earth, but had been lost due to human corruption.

Both prophets created new scripture which borrowed heavily from the Bible, but with a substantially new “spin.” In his Koran, Mohammed appropriates a number of Biblical themes and characters—but he changes the complete sense of many passages, claiming to “correct” the Bible. In so doing he changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place. In like manner, Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon, much of which is plagiarized directly from the King James Bible. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon claims that this same Bible has been substantially corrupted and is therefore unreliable. In addition, Joseph Smith went so far as to actually create his own version of the Bible itself, the “Inspired Version,” in which he both adds and deletes significant portions of text, claiming he is “correcting” it. In so doing he also changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place.

As a part of their new scriptural “spin,” both prophets saw themselves as prophesied in scripture, and both saw themselves as a continuation of a long line of Biblical prophets. Mohammed saw himself as a continuation of the ministry of Moses and Jesus. Joseph Smith saw himself as a successor to Enoch, Melchizedek, Joseph and Moses. Joseph Smith actually wrote himself into his own version of the Bible—by name.

Both prophets held up their own scripture as superior to the Bible. Mohammed claimed that the Koran was a perfect copy of the original which was in heaven. The Koran is therefore held to be absolutely perfect, far superior to the Bible and superceding it. In like manner, Joseph Smith also made the following claim. “I told the Brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts, than by any other book.”[3]

Despite their claim that the Bible was corrupt, both prophets admonished their followers to adhere to its teachings. An obvious contradiction, this led to selective acceptance of some portions and wholesale rejection of others. As a result, the Bible is accepted by both groups of followers only to the extent that it agrees with their prophet’s own superior revelation.

Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith taught that true salvation was to be found only in their respective religions. Those who would not accept their message were considered “infidels,” pagans or Gentiles. In so doing, both prophets became the enemy of genuine Christianity, and have led many people away from the Christ of the Bible.

Both prophets encountered fierce opposition to their new religions and had to flee from town to town because of threats on their lives. Both retaliated to this opposition by forming their own militias. Both ultimately set up their own towns as model societies.

Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith left unclear instructions about their successors. The majority of Mohammed’s followers, Sunni Muslims, believe they were to elect their new leader, whereas the minority, Shiite Muslims, believe Mohammed’s son was to be their next leader. Similarly, the majority of Joseph Smith’s followers, Mormons, believed their next prophet should have been the existing leader of their quorum of twelve apostles, whereas the minority, RLDS, believed Joseph Smith’s own son should have been their next prophet.

Differences on this issue, and many others, have created substantial tension between these rival groups of each prophet. Mohammed taught that Jesus was just another of a long line of human prophets, of which he was the last. He taught that he was superior to Christ and superceded Him. In comparison, Joseph Smith also made the following claim.
“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.”[4]

In light of these parallels, perhaps Joseph Smith’s claim to be a second Mohammed unwittingly became his most genuine prophecy of all.
________________________________________

[1] Joseph Smith made this statement at the conclusion of a speech in the public square at Far West, Missouri on October 14, 1838. This particular quote is documented in Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, second edition, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), p. 230–231. Fawn Brodie’s footnote regarding this speech contains valuable information, and follows. “Except where noted, all the details of this chapter [16] are taken from the History of the [Mormon] Church. This speech, however, was not recorded there, and the report given here is based upon the accounts of seven men. See the affidavits of T.B. Marsh, Orson Hyde, George M. Hinkle, John Corrill, W.W. Phelps, Samson Avard, and Reed Peck in Correspondence, Orders, etc., pp. 57–9, 97–129. The Marsh and Hyde account, which was made on October 24, is particularly important. Part of it was reproduced in History of the [Mormon] Church, Vol. III, p. 167. See also the Peck manuscript, p. 80. Joseph himself barely mentioned the speech in his history; see Vol. III, p. 162.”

[2] John Ankerberg & John Weldon, The Facts on Islam, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1998), pp.8–9. Eric Johnson, Joseph Smith & Muhammed, (El Cajon, CA: Mormonism Research Ministry, 1998), pp. 6–7.

[3] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.4, pp.461.

[4] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.6, pp.408–409.

(Decker, Ed, My Kingdom Come: The Mormon Quest for Godhood, Xulon Press, 2007)


6 posted on 02/08/2012 4:21:35 PM PST by Tennessee Nana (Why should I vote for Romney when he hates me because I am a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

JUST GREAT! We could go from a President who practices Islam to one who “deeply respects” Islam. NO THANK YOU! I ran out of barf bags from witnessing G.W. Bush’s “respect” for the “religion of peace”. The next President must be one who understands the true mortal threat of Islam, and acts accordingly. Either Newt or Rick would fit that bill nicely.


7 posted on 02/08/2012 4:23:05 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Bookmark.


8 posted on 02/08/2012 4:23:21 PM PST by Jane Long (Soli Deo Gloria!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana
Mormonism: What the Latter Day Saints think of Islam

Snip:

The LDS’s Toronto says that “as early as 1855, at a time when Christian literature generally ridiculed Muhammad as the Antichrist and the archenemy of Western civilization, Elders George A. Smith (1817-75) and Parley P. Pratt (1807-57) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles delivered lengthy sermons demonstrating and accurate and balanced understanding of Islamic history and speaking highly of Muhammad’s leadership.” In fact “Elder Pratt went on to express his admiration for Muhammad’s teachings, asserting that ‘upon the whole,…[Muslims] have better morals and better institutions than many Christian nations.’”

9 posted on 02/08/2012 4:23:55 PM PST by MamaDearest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

This is enlightening, although I wish there was more. Did elder Mormons study Islam before they formed Mormon theology? Because as I understand both religions, they really have a lot of beliefs in common.


10 posted on 02/08/2012 4:24:35 PM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MamaDearest

In fact “Elder Pratt went on to express his admiration for Muhammad’s teachings, asserting that ‘upon the whole,…[Muslims] have better morals and better institutions than many Christian nations.’”
___________________________________

Yes Parley P Pratt, Willard Mitt Romneys gg grandfather

Parley P Pratt a polygamist with several wives and who stole another mans wife and got himself killed by that man...

Mormonism’s idea of a “moral” man...

When Willard Mitt Romney boasts that he believes “the faith of my fathers” one of those “fathers” is Parley P Pratt...


11 posted on 02/08/2012 4:38:56 PM PST by Tennessee Nana (Why should I vote for Romney when he hates me because I am a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian; marron

First of all, this article that you refer to was written in 2000 before 911. After 911 the Church leadership denounced those attacks very forcefully and the radical islamics who conducted them...and urged American citizens to fight.

Second, Toronto is not a spokesman for, or General Authority of the Chuirch. Back then he wrote what he considered a scholarly article on Muslims...and one of the qutes you use, speaking of Mohammed in a praising fashion, he clearly cites as coming from Muslim sources.

The Church opposes Sharia Law which is the political heartstone of fundmental Islam and its desire to enslave the world.

At the same time, we recognize that there are good people amongst the Muslim population who follow virtuous teachings about marriage, the family, virtue, etc. I believe that is the principle point trying to be made by the author back then...and one the church urges its members to try and do...that is find the good in other people.

But radical Islam and its compulsion is an enemy to all rational and reasoned persons and institutions and the Church does not confederate with it, or preach that it is good.

The church does try and find common ground with Muslims who are seeking to avoid the violence and compulsion that that form of Islam inspires and promotes.

Fact is, more Iraqis, Afghans, and Pakistanis have died fighting against radical fundamental Islam than we have lost in all of our encounters with them ourselves...far more, and many many of them have died right at our personnel’s side. Problem is, they live amongst populations that are run through with the fundamental jihadists who believe that the moderate, more peace seeking muslims must either conform or die...and who will act the part to infiltrate the ranks of the “new” forces we set up so they can kill our people along with their own.

My own opinion, and shared by most LDS people I know is that we cannot afford to “nation-build” these places. That we MUST go in with absolute overwhelming force and destroy not only the jihadists camps and forces, but anyone who gives them support and sanctuary...meaning the populations that do so...just like we doid with in Germany with the Nazis.

If there are those who would fight with us, then they better seperate themselves and fight the enemy just as hard...and there are those that do.

But trying to imply that somehow Romney or Mormons in general are going to placate and be sympathetic to our enemies in the fashion that Obama is, is simply not true.


12 posted on 02/08/2012 4:48:44 PM PST by Jeff Head (Liberty is not free. Never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montag813

And GWB said that Christians and Izzies worship the SAME God! Really?? Where did he get THAT from?? Oh, maybe his one world government daddy.


13 posted on 02/08/2012 4:52:11 PM PST by RetiredArmy (POLITICIANS: Promise the moon. Deliver the shaft.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Well said.


14 posted on 02/08/2012 4:57:05 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Former (now deceased) LDS scriptorian, writer and church leader/Apostle Elder Bruce R. McConkie was quoted as stating the following regarding the Muslims’ book of scripture: “Satan inspired”

Not exactly a PC PR statement.


15 posted on 02/08/2012 4:57:53 PM PST by JustTheTruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
Muslim leaders express thanks to President Uchtdorf

It is interesting how buddy-buddy mormons want to be with muslims.

16 posted on 02/08/2012 5:04:21 PM PST by aMorePerfectUnion (I wouldnÂ’t vote for Romney for dog catcher if he was in a three way race against Lenin and Marx!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Mark Levin invited Mormons to call in to talk about the magic underwear...


17 posted on 02/08/2012 5:09:40 PM PST by Tennessee Nana (Why should I vote for Romney when he hates me because I am a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Reason enough to dump Romney and his magic underwear.


18 posted on 02/08/2012 5:11:52 PM PST by beethovenfan (If Islam is the solution, the "problem" must be freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spunky

Bookmark for later reading.


19 posted on 02/08/2012 5:14:45 PM PST by Spunky ("Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid." President Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

Well the skull and bones folks, and the head chopping folks, and the Moron I’s, all follow satan.


20 posted on 02/08/2012 5:30:45 PM PST by rawcatslyentist (Jeremiah 50:31 Behold, I am against you, O arrogant one,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: All
(Well...it looks like at least Romney has the Muslim and lockstep Mormon vote all locked up!)
21 posted on 02/08/2012 5:35:52 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head; marron; aMorePerfectUnion; All
Toronto is not a spokesman for, or General Authority of the Chuirch.

(Have you -- or other Mormons -- told that to the BYU students who sit at Toronto's BYU lectures? Or to the women who sat to hear one of his talks @ the '01 BYU Women's Conference? I didn't know Toronto -- or somebody else -- had to issue this disclaimer each time Toronto spoke at a class, conference or other BYU or Mormon-attended event...somebody must be slacking off...better get on some Mormon leaders' case 'bout that, Jeff)

22 posted on 02/08/2012 5:39:44 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
Good post....

Fair accurate observations....

23 posted on 02/08/2012 5:46:51 PM PST by Osage Orange (A clear conscience is the sign of a fuzzy memory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head; marron; aMorePerfectUnion; All
First of all, this article that you refer to was written in 2000 before 911. After 911 the Church leadership denounced those attacks very forcefully and the radical islamics who conducted them...and urged American citizens to fight. Second, Toronto is not a spokesman for, or General Authority of the Chuirch. Back then he wrote what he considered a scholarly article on Muslims...and one of the qutes you use, speaking of Mohammed in a praising fashion, he clearly cites as coming from Muslim sources. [Jeff Head, Mormon]

ALL: We can learn as much from what Mormon FREEPERS don't address in a response as much as what they do address.

Note that in the excerpts I culled out from this article in post #1, I highlighted FOUR Lds leader references to Mohammed. And these were all highly pro-Mohammed statements!

* One was from Mitt Romney's G-G Grandfather, Lds "apostle" Parley P. Pratt;
* Another from another Lds "apostle," George A. Smith
* A third from a BYU professor (Toronto)
* A fourth from the highest level of Lds hierarchy -- a First Presidency statement from 1978.

Now did Jeff Head, FREEPER Mormon, respond at all to these pro-Mohammed Lds statements? (NO!!!)

He ducked. He skirted. He shied away. He waived off addressing them. He veered. He bobbed. He weaved. He darted away. He ran. He slithered away.

Nope. No head-on addressing Mohammed from Jeff, lest he either...
...(a) counter these four positive Lds leader statements about Mohammed, & thereby put these leaders whom he's supposed to "sustain" in a bad light;
...or (b) show the world that, he, too, is pro-Mohammed and likewise presents him in a positive light.

Jeff, 9/11 didn't change Mohammed. It simply highlighted the pro-violent Quranic jihadist passages already there -- the ones already attributed to Mohammed!

Bottom line: Mormon leadership has been "up" on Mohammed for a LONG time -- given that Parley P. Pratt was an Lds "apostle" at the time of Joseph Smith's era & given that the Lds First Presidency has been making such statements in Jeff Head's lifetime!

Mitt? Sounds to me like he's pro-Mohammed, too.

If you're Muslim, Mitt, Mitt, he's your man...nobody can "foreign policy" Islam like Romney can!

[Oh, and btw, quite interesting to see Lds leadership so upbeat and positive about Mohammed and Islam in general...yet Lds "scripture" labels the "professors" of Christian sects as 100% "corrupt" ("all") per Joseph Smith, History, vv. 18-19, Pearl of Great Price]

But whadda we to expect? The Muslims call Christians "infidels" -- and Joseph Smith & co. came along to tag-team with them and call ALL Christians and their denominations "apostates." Why, they're on the same page, aren't they?...'twas probably "unveiled" by the same "angel" -- the one Mohammed thought at first was a jinn (demon) until a relative convinced him otherwise.

24 posted on 02/08/2012 5:58:30 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer
Joseph Smith was so enamored with islam that he declared himself the next mohammad. And yes, there are dozens upon dozens of similarities. And yes, SLC lds and islam have been partnering for years, going so far as praying together in each others "sanctuaries" because they feel so comfortable with each other.
25 posted on 02/08/2012 5:59:27 PM PST by svcw (Only difference between Romney & BH is one thinks he will be god & other one thinks he already is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana
The Marsh and Hyde account, which was made on October 24, is particularly important. Part of it was reproduced in History of the [Mormon] Church, Vol. III, p. 167.

Well . . .page 167 exists in the printed version of Volume III of the Official History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

However, page 167 has been removed from the digital version of Volume III of the Official History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints available from the BYU archives and other sources (LDS.org removed the entire Official History from its website last fall). This doesn't exist in the digital version now available online:

“I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us—‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’ ”

To understand this graphic, page numbers are shown to the right of the text of the pages in the digital version. Here, you'll see that page 167 has been removed:


26 posted on 02/08/2012 6:03:50 PM PST by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
Jeff, oh come on.
Joseph Smith declared himself to be the next mohammad.
Much of mormonISM is founded on islamic principles, Joseph Smith was enamored with islam. SLC lds have been partnering with islam for years, even going so far as to praying in each other sanctuaries.
27 posted on 02/08/2012 6:04:24 PM PST by svcw (Only difference between Romney & BH is one thinks he will be god & other one thinks he already is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: All
Quite a similarity...polygamy, belief in the superiority of men over women.
28 posted on 02/08/2012 6:06:19 PM PST by patriot08 (TEXAS GAL- born and bred and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marron

To bad its just blather.
Joseph Smith loved islam and so does SLC lds.


29 posted on 02/08/2012 6:13:02 PM PST by svcw (Only difference between Romney & BH is one thinks he will be god & other one thinks he already is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian; marron; Osage Orange

Colo, nobody skirted anything. I addressed what you posted and did so as I chose and please...sorry if it is not exactly what you wanted me to say, but I am not trying to impress or argue with you, just establishing the counter to what you are posting here.

You talk about people who spoke of Mohammed and Islam back in the 1800s when they had very little knoweldge of them or acquantence and had never traveled there or interfaced with them.

These men were not perfect and they had their opinions like we all do on such things, except today we know a lot more...and after 911, for a lot of [people it became more cl;ear, though me and mine knew already and wanted our nation to respond more strongly for several years.

As I have said on an earlier post, I did not agree with what Jospeh Smith said about Mohammed, but I also take it in the context of what he was experiencing at Far West and what had happened at Haun’s Mill. He was very emotional, and understandably so. Of course that part is not explained in your quote, you just lift it up and say, “Ha! There, see!”

Out of the emotion, and a lack of the knoweldge that we have today regarding Islam, IMHO, he misspoke...but since he and his family friends, relatives and neighbors had had an extermination order evoked by a governor and an army was there to inact it...and thousands of people were about to be evicted and lose everything accept the clothes on their back...and if they did not then they were to be exterminated and driven by the sword...so they then pretty much left a trail of blood in the snow, men woman and children as they walked across Missouri at the time...I’ll give him the benefit of a doubt and understand the strength of his emotions at the time.

Bruce R. McKonkie, who an Apostle in the Church in more modern times until his death a few years back, had very strong, negative things to say about Islam and the Koran...so we can find quote and counter quote if you want.

But to try and say that the LDS, or infer that the LDS are somehow confederated or allied with, or soft on radical islam is just a pure sham and attempt to demonize and marginalize a gropup of good people whose sons and daughters, fathers, brothers, sisters, etc. have gone to fight for our country against this enemy and continue to do so today.

Their life’s blood is the testament against this reproach that you are making.

As I stated to you once before, I will not let such a comparison, motivated by pure dislke bordering on hatred for the religious belief of those people, be made without speaking out against it.

Consider me having done so now on this thread and I am happy to let others read and make their own judgements.


30 posted on 02/08/2012 9:28:24 PM PST by Jeff Head (Liberty is not free. Never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Osage Orange; marron

Thank you both for your rationality and reason. God’s speed. BZ.


31 posted on 02/08/2012 9:30:23 PM PST by Jeff Head (Liberty is not free. Never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Damn the worthless Saracen bastards to Hell and all who would worship with them.


32 posted on 02/08/2012 10:49:41 PM PST by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

What of Islam isn’t radical? Wipe it off the Earth. Nazism was eliminated. So too must it be for Islam.


33 posted on 02/08/2012 10:54:32 PM PST by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
But trying to imply that somehow Romney or Mormons in general are going to placate and be sympathetic to our enemies in the fashion that Obama is, is simply not true.

HMMMmmm...

 
 
 

“I Will Be a Second Mohammed”

In the heat of the Missouri “Mormon War” of 1838, Joseph Smith made the following claim, “I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us—‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’ ”[1]

It is most interesting that a self-proclaimed Christian prophet would liken himself to Mohammed, the founder of Islam. His own comparison invites us to take a closer look as well. And when we do, we find some striking—and troubling—parallels. Consider the following.

  • Mohammed and Joseph Smith both had humble beginnings. Neither had formal religious connections or upbringing, and both were relatively uneducated. Both founded new religions by creating their own scriptures. In fact, followers of both prophets claim these scriptures are miracles since their authors were the most simple and uneducated of men.[2]

  • Both prophets claim of having angel visitations, and of receiving divine revelation to restore pure religion to the earth again. Mohammed was told that both Jews and Christians had long since corrupted their scriptures and religion. In like manner, Joseph Smith was told that all of Christianity had become corrupt, and that consequently the Bible itself was no longer reliable. In both cases, this corruption required a complete restoration of both scripture and religion. Nothing which preceded either prophet could be relied upon any longer. Both prophets claim they were used of God to restore eternal truths which once existed on earth, but had been lost due to human corruption.

  • Both prophets created new scripture which borrowed heavily from the Bible, but with a substantially new “spin.” In his Koran, Mohammed appropriates a number of Biblical themes and characters—but he changes the complete sense of many passages, claiming to “correct” the Bible. In so doing he changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place. In like manner, Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon, much of which is plagiarized directly from the King James Bible. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon claims that this same Bible has been substantially corrupted and is therefore unreliable. In addition, Joseph Smith went so far as to actually create his own version of the Bible itself, the “Inspired Version,” in which he both adds and deletes significant portions of text, claiming he is “correcting” it. In so doing he also changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place.

  • As a part of their new scriptural “spin,” both prophets saw themselves as prophesied in scripture, and both saw themselves as a continuation of a long line of Biblical prophets. Mohammed saw himself as a continuation of the ministry of Moses and Jesus. Joseph Smith saw himself as a successor to Enoch, Melchizedek, Joseph and Moses. Joseph Smith actually wrote himself into his own version of the Bible—by name.

  • Both prophets held up their own scripture as superior to the Bible. Mohammed claimed that the Koran was a perfect copy of the original which was in heaven. The Koran is therefore held to be absolutely perfect, far superior to the Bible and superceding it. In like manner, Joseph Smith also made the following claim. “I told the Brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts, than by any other book.”[3]

  • Despite their claim that the Bible was corrupt, both prophets admonished their followers to adhere to its teachings. An obvious contradiction, this led to selective acceptance of some portions and wholesale rejection of others. As a result, the Bible is accepted by both groups of followers only to the extent that it agrees with their prophet’s own superior revelation.

  • Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith taught that true salvation was to be found only in their respective religions. Those who would not accept their message were considered “infidels,” pagans or Gentiles. In so doing, both prophets became the enemy of genuine Christianity, and have led many people away from the Christ of the Bible.

  • Both prophets encountered fierce opposition to their new religions and had to flee from town to town because of threats on their lives. Both retaliated to this opposition by forming their own militias. Both ultimately set up their own towns as model societies.

  • Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith left unclear instructions about their successors. The majority of Mohammed’s followers, Sunni Muslims, believe they were to elect their new leader, whereas the minority, Shiite Muslims, look to Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, whom they consider Divinely appointed, as the rightful successor to Muhammad, and the first imam. (Ali was the cousin and son-in-law of the Islamic prophet Muhammad). Similarly, the majority of Joseph Smith's followers, Mormons, believed their next prophet should have been the existing leader of their quorum of twelve apostles, whereas the minority, RLDS, believed Joseph Smith's own son should have been their next prophet. Differences on this issue, and many others, have created substantial tension between these rival groups of each prophet.

  • Mohammed taught that Jesus was just another of a long line of human prophets, of which he was the last. He taught that he was superior to Christ and superceded Him. In comparison, Joseph Smith also made the following claim.

“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.”[4] In light of these parallels, perhaps Joseph Smith's claim to be a second Mohammed unwittingly became his most genuine prophecy of all.


[1] Joseph Smith made this statement at the conclusion of a speech in the public square at Far West, Missouri on October 14, 1838. This particular quote is documented in Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, second edition, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), p. 230–231. Fawn Brodie’s footnote regarding this speech contains valuable information, and follows. “Except where noted, all the details of this chapter [16] are taken from the History of the [Mormon] Church. This speech, however, was not recorded there, and the report given here is based upon the accounts of seven men. See the affidavits of T.B. Marsh, Orson Hyde, George M. Hinkle, John Corrill, W.W. Phelps, Samson Avard, and Reed Peck in Correspondence, Orders, etc., pp. 57–9, 97–129. The Marsh and Hyde account, which was made on October 24, is particularly important. Part of it was reproduced in History of the [Mormon] Church, Vol. III, p. 167. See also the Peck manuscript, p. 80. Joseph himself barely mentioned the speech in his history; see Vol. III, p. 162.”

[2] John Ankerberg & John Weldon, The Facts on Islam, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1998), pp.8–9. Eric Johnson, Joseph Smith & Muhammed, (El Cajon, CA: Mormonism Research Ministry, 1998), pp. 6–7.

[3] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.4, pp.461.

[4] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.6, pp.408–409.




34 posted on 02/09/2012 4:52:15 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
Consider me having done so now on this thread and I am happy to let others read and make their own judgements.

Thank you, Jeff. You indeed show more boldness than the "average Mormon" in at least willing to engage others on these matters. Many past comments & queries of mine extended your way have gone unanswered, but I know your main purpose on these threads isn't to get into extended discussions on these matters.

Hence, if I respond more on this -- re: your next comment...I'll try to limit it to just one final summation.

Your most interesting comments -- and ones that seem to contrast most with Lds "scripture" (Doctrine & Covenants) -- I've taken the liberty to chart below since indeed we're both equally happy to let others read and make their own judgments.

I took this comment from you and segmented it into the chart below:

You talk about people who spoke of Mohammed and Islam back in the 1800s when they had very little knoweldge of them or acquantence and had never traveled there or interfaced with them. These men were not perfect and they had their opinions like we all do on such things, except today we know a lot more...and after 911, for a lot of [people it became more cl;ear, though me and mine knew already and wanted our nation to respond more strongly for several years. [Jeff Head]

So...Let's break down your rather "low" opinion of Lds "apostles" vs. what Mormon "scripture" and doctrine teaches about them.

Jeff Head's weak apology of why Lds 'Apostles' were so far off-base in summing up Mohammed A summarized 'Translation' of Jeff Head's bottom-line description of Lds 'apostles' How does this match Lds 'scriptures' in Doctrine & Covenants or what Lds 'prophets' & 'apostles' describe?
"These men were not perfect...today we know a lot more" Imperfect (in what they taught) "The duty of...an Apostle is an elder, and it is his calling to....teach, expound, exhort, baptize, and watch over the church;" (D&C 20:38, 42)
"These men were not perfect and they had their opinions like we all do on such things, except today we know a lot more" (False) Opinion Generators "STATUS OF THE TWELVE AS REVELATORS FOR CHURCH. The Twelve Apostles have been sustained as prophets, seers and revelators ever since the time of the dedication of the Kirtland Temple...The Twelve Apostles may receive revelation to guide them..." (Lds "prophet" Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 3:156-157)
"You talk about people who spoke of Mohammed and Islam back in the 1800s when they had very little knoweldge of them or acquantence and had never traveled there or interfaced with them." Theologically, sociologically, culturally, and comparative world-religion illiterates equivalent to their times of knowledge darkness "The twelve traveling councilors are to be The Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ IN ALL THE WORLD -- thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling. And they form a quorum, EQUAL IN AUTHORITY AND POWER TO THE THREE PRESIDENTS..." (Lds "scripture" D&C 107:23-24)
"These men were not perfect and they had their opinions like we all do on such things..." Apparently these Lds 'apostles' were not always or usually guided by the Holy Spirit "...this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood...And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. And WHATSOEVER THEY SHALL SPEAK when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord..." (D&C 68:2-4)
"You talk about people who spoke of Mohammed and Islam back in the 1800s when they had VERY LITTLE KNOWELDGE of them...These men WERE NOT PERFECT AND THEY HAD THEIR OPINIONS LIKE WE ALL DO on such things..." Jeff's Bottom-line: Much of what the Lds 'apostles' had to say is not worth heeding...tantamount to reading a Web site opinion forum or letter-to-the-editor page "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets AND APOSTLES, SHALL BE CUT OFF FROM AMONG THE PEOPLE." (D&C 1:14)

Seems to me, Jeff, you are militating vs...
...D&C 1:14,
...D&C 68:2-4,
...D&C 107:23-24...
...as well as the words of Lds "prophet" Joseph Fielding Smith.

What's rather interesting then in all of this is that YOUR WORDS and OPINIONS on this matter seem to trump...
...not only Lds "apostles" Parley P. Pratt and George Smith words re: Mohammed...
...but also trumps/sharply counters how the words of Lds "apostles" are to be met...
...instead of being received as ones coming from "revelators," "prophets" and "seers" "equal in authority and power to the three presidents" -- "apostles" whose very job description it is to "teach, expound...and watch over the church" especially "IN ALL THE WORLD"...meaning their authoritative comments supposedly hold no social, geographical, cultural or other world religion boundaries...
...I detect a clear "let's reject the words of Lds 'apostles'" since we now know a lot more "after 911."

Would your bishop countenance these slams vs. Lds "apostles" and the D&C?

35 posted on 02/09/2012 4:53:53 AM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
They are not perfect. I stand by that. Nothing you have said indicates the church thinks they are. No quote or scripture you can cite will say that they are. Only Jesus Christ lived a perfect life.

They do have their opinions, like we all do. "When moved upon by the Holy Ghost," then their words are taken as the counsel and direction you cite for the church and I agree wholeheartidly with that. When that is the case, the church is informed, policy and instructions are issued and the Church moves along accordingly...and the members get to pray about those actions and then give their commen consent to the decision so rendered.

I've been in the church 41 years, colo, served in bishoprics and numerous other positions. Nothing that I have said is not in keeping with the testimony I have, or the promises and covenants I have made with my Savior.

The position of the Churh has never been that Jospeh Smith would be or is the next Mohammed, that Sharia Law and the basic tennants of Islam are what the LDS people should follow or obey, or that their teachings represent "the truth." Some have indicated that there are good qualities of some Mulsim people who follow good tennants such as being true to their families, being virtuous, helping others, and so forth.

You can look for the good in people, even when the basic tennants underlying thir fundamental philosophy is something like Sharia Law, which they themselves do not follow...and you can reach out to such people. We have many muslims within our own armed forces, and allied to us, who are helping in the fight, and those in our own forces who are loyal Americans.

Sadly, we also have those fundamental/radical infiltrators, steeped in and desiring Sharia Law for the whole earth, who get inside and then reak havoc, as the Sgt on the eve of battle in Iraq who killed a fellow Idahoan that day, and the traitor who took the lives of those personnel at Ft. Hood.

Sadly in each of those cases (and others) there was ample warning, but because of the PC nature of much of the actions toward Islam as a whole, and its fundamental flaws, those warning were ignored and those people who should have been drummed out were left in position to do their harm.

IMHO, organizations like CAIR, and any Mosque that teaches Sharia Law should lose their charitable status, should lose their protection as a religion and be labeled as a seditious enemy entity and treated accordingly. Any Mosque that rejects Sharia LAw should be allowed to continue. But those seeking Sharia Law, which is a political and religious tyranny, are the enemies of the Constitution and the liberty we all cherish, and should be recognized and treated as the enemies they are. If a citrizen then either seditious or traitor, if not a citizen then a out and out enemy.

Having said that, there are millions of muslims fighting against this fundamental basis for Islam all over the world, and dying by the tens of thosuands, and I applaud and encourage those who recognize the evil amongst them and fight it. Perhaps in time, some of those people can be reached and taught the gospel and brough to Jesus Christ.

As you know, they take great risk when they do convert...and yet some do. My son, on his mission several years ago, had just such experiencea with an individual in one city, and with an entire family in another. They are now very devout and faithful followers of Jesus Christ, despite the risks.

Again, the LDS faith is not confederated with or "like" fundamental Islam in the least and recognizes it as a grave threat and has encouraged its members to stand firm in the faith of Christ, and to fight against the radicals.

The Church has also encouraged its members to look for the good in others in all faiths and reach out to them in the hopes of bringing them to Christ. The two do not contradict one another...but they do require good judgement on the part of each of us.

But many young LDS sign up and do fight, and those who have made careers of the military are in the fight to, and many of both of those have re-up'd several times specifically to keep fighting the Jihadists.

I have spoken to those that do whom I come across, and they do so because the nature of the threat is so obvious when they are in those lands fighting it and they do not want it to come here. Sadly, and yet heroically, many of those have shed their blood doing so.

I honor them all, of all denominations, who stand and fight the scurge of fundamental Islam, including the many LDS who do and have done so...and IMHO, so should you and not disparage their faith in Christ and try to marginalize it and demonize it by comparing that very faith to the thing they fight (even if you disagree with the tennants) which is one of the prime motivating factors that leads them to such service, and sacrifice.

Colo, you are clearly very disaffected by the Church, as are many amongst the group you have adopted (ironically) as the flying Inmans. I know you did so because you were called this, apparently by an LDS member...but should I compare you and them to Islam and marginalize you because you have willingly adopted such a name?

No, of course not.

I am sorry for the experiences that you and others have had that resulted in the disaffection you have. Wherever it was wrong in how your were treated , spoken to, or had members, even leaders bahve towards you, I will recognize it as such. Wherever people did not act with the compassion, mercy and understanding of Christ in those dealings, I will stand against it.

But please do not convey those experiences on the Church as a whole or its membership. It is not systemic in the least as my own experience and those of millions of others attest. The same things happens in any congregation or denomoination because we are all sinners, make mistakes, and so in need of the blood of Christ to clean us. Sadly, some (in all denominations) go to church and participate out of social or other reasons not associated with the atonement and redemption of Christ.

well, any Christian church is a hospital for sinner...and not a country club for saints. Sometimes some folks get the two confused.

We cna only pray in all cases that they will turn to Him accept His offering truly in their hearts, and then treat one another accordingly. When you see that happening, you can be a fair judge that Christ is in those folks hearts, when they profess Him and then act as best they can in their daily walk and interaction with others as He would act.

You have the last word...as I am sure you will take it in any case. Will you tear down, attack, and disparage? Or will you accept the olive branch and try and work together politically and in faith with those who should be (and would be) your allies in our desperate struggle to save our nation internally and protect it externally, despite our differences?

Outside of those doctrinal differences, when it comes to liberty, the family, the soveriegnty of our nation, the Constitution, abortion, homosexuality, corruption, the amount of and role of the Federal government, judicial activism, etc., etc. the list goes on and on...we seek and desire the same things for ourselves and families.

I am willing to work with you and all others on those things at any time and in any place.

If you get the time, read the following...it was sincerely and soberly written and represents my feelings about our country, our circumstances, and my faith in our nation and its people.

America at the Crossroads of History
http://www.jeffhead.com/crossroads.htm

36 posted on 02/09/2012 7:09:18 AM PST by Jeff Head (Liberty is not free. Never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head; Colofornian

Well then Jeff, it appears to me that by writing a pass for all your apostles and prophets you then call into question ALL of their teaching. Smith’s King Follett sermon now is just an opinion - an opinion that billions and billions on temples all focused upon becoming gods - and relegates it to false teaching and doctrines.

Same too with bring ‘em young’s adam / god doctrine- he and it was sustained throughout his term as president/prophet/seer of mormonism.


37 posted on 02/09/2012 8:50:51 AM PST by Godzilla (3/7/77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: marron

The mormons can’t see the forest for the trees. Denial of the divinity of Christ by islam isn’t important to mormons since they too are confused by muddy doctrines. Both have no problem with destroying Christian civilization in order to build a new islamic/ mormon world order.


38 posted on 02/09/2012 8:58:39 AM PST by x_plus_one (Obama: Brainwashing the masses to believe that racism is a greater danger than radical Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla

Read the reesponses...the teachings taught as and accepted as doctrine from the apostles and prophets are taught and lived by the church and its membership.

We believe Christ meant it in Matthew when He said to us, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect,” We believe Paul meant what he said in Romans when he said that we are “heirs of God, and joint heris with Jesus Christ,” of all that the Father is giving to Christ. Ditto with the Apostle John and others in the New Testament.

Others differ in their belief and interpretation...and that is fine. But we are rehashing old ground here.

As I said, we should be working together to save our republic for all of the reasons I cited to Colo above.


39 posted on 02/09/2012 9:02:34 AM PST by Jeff Head (Liberty is not free. Never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head; Colofornian
Read the reesponses...the teachings taught as and accepted as doctrine from the apostles and prophets are taught and lived by the church and its membership.

So you are admitting that Adam/God and blood atonement - taught and accepted as doctrine from the apostles and prophets and lived by church and its membership were valid doctrines and valid truths (from a mormon viewpoint) from 'god'.

We believe Christ meant it in Matthew when He said to us, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect,

Indeed he said that - are you perfect? or perhaps you should read the context a little more closely.

We believe Paul meant what he said in Romans when he said that we are “heirs of God, and joint heris with Jesus Christ,” of all that the Father is giving to Christ. Ditto with the Apostle John and others in the New Testament.

Which have nothing do do with becoming 'gods', for Jesus himself made it clear that there was only one TRUE God.

40 posted on 02/09/2012 9:44:36 AM PST by Godzilla (3/7/77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla
Christ's death and His blood is what atones for us and that is the doctrine and teaching of the church. We do not and cannot she our own or one another's blood to atone for one another in the spiritual sense. The Church does not teach that in the least.

People do die for others all the time in order to try and save them physically, or to preserve their liberty or way of life. Some might say that is a form of blood atonement...but it has nothing to do with spiritual and eternal slavation.

Clearly in society, there are crimes that are committed, murder in particular, where our society demand the death penalty as justice for it...some could say perhaps that is blood atonement I suppose...but it really does not atone, it just renders justice.

Brigham Young did refer to various blood atonement ideas and thoughts he had, but what I just stated in the 1st paragraph about Christ is the doctrine and teaching of the church.

The Journal of Discourses is not recognized or taught of as scripture for the church. It is a historical journal of many of the speeches and lectures those men gave, but they of themselves do not represent the doctrine that the Church espouses or follows. People should check with Church offical representatives and spokesmen and ask as regards these things before they quote those speeches as somehow being the offical doctrine of the church...because more often than not, particularly when quoted to try and find the most outlandish things that those men said many years ago, and to find fault with or tear down the church, they simply are not.

But also in most of those cases, the people doing so are not really interested in what the Church actually teaches, they are more interested in trying to claim fault.

Well, people are imperfect. They say and do imperfect things. Even the best amongst us sometimes. It's why we all need Christ. But, anyone looking can generally find fault and broadcast it as such when they want to tear down or attack anyone else. Happens all the time in politics, business, religion, etc., etc.

As to this quote,

Which have nothing do do with becoming 'gods', for Jesus himself made it clear that there was only one TRUE God.

And yet Christ Himself, in the New Testament in John when praying to His Father for hHis disciples and those that would hear them, indicated that their oneness was exactly what He wanted for His disciples and those whom they teach ("I would that they would be one, even as we are one,")...clearly a oneness in unity and purpose and not that they would meld together into the same body and/or spirit.

This is shown in many other places, like when God the Father and His Son were seen by the martyr Stephen, God on the Throne and Christ on His right hand, next to Him, seperately.

God the Father spoke at Christ's Baptism, the Holy Ghost descended, and Christ was in the water...all three of them seperately at His Baptism, and again at the mount of transfiguaration.

Clearly, the Bible itself amply teaches what the oneness Christ refers to means...clear back to Genesis We can cover this ground again too...but it is clear we differ in interpretation on these points.

Which does not take away from, or lessen Christ's atonement for all of us and our utter reliance on Him and Him crucified.

Again, we can go back and forth (as has been done on other threads) about these docrinal differences, but again I say, Christ is my Savior, His atonement saves and nothing else. Without it we are all lost no matter what else we do.

And again, we should be allied together fighting for the preservation of our Republic on the fundamental moral principles taught by Christ in His gospel about true liberty and how we treat one another.

I am more than willing to do so and hope you and others can see your way clear to do so too. We can beat the amoral liberals, socialists and marxists who beset us, together and with God in Heaven's help, and we can defeat the tyranical fundamental Islamics and other enemies who would inslave us all.

Enemies would divide us and have us nit-pick, divide, and fight each other while they are at, or within the gates. I urge you to work together with good LDS people in uniting and defending our liberty. IMHO, that is what we should be focusing on at this critical stage of our history.

I have said this over and over...and will just leave it at that. Thanks for the conversation.

41 posted on 02/09/2012 10:31:47 AM PST by Jeff Head (Liberty is not free. Never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
You talk about people who spoke of Mohammed and Islam back in the 1800s when they had very little knoweldge of them or acquantence and had never traveled there or interfaced with them.

Yup; like the days before the 'net when few were aware of the hidden things of MORMONism.

Now that the KNOWLEDGE is being disseminated; folks are wising up; both within the LDS religious organization and external to it.

42 posted on 02/09/2012 11:13:28 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

You seem to want to maximize some of the similarities mormons share with Christians when it comes to political matters, but then minimize the differences when it comes to theology.

Politics and the future of our republic will always take second place in importance when it comes to spiritual matters. That is because eternal lives are at stake. People can certainly spend time and energy advancing political causes, but many recognize the greater importance of rebuking false teaching.

Therefore, you shouldn’t be suprised that posters disagree with your theology on a RELIGION forum. Your calls for unity are weak and seem like an attempt to deflect arguements against Mormonism.


43 posted on 02/09/2012 11:29:18 AM PST by Turtlepower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head; Colofornian
Christ's death and His blood is what atones for us and that is the doctrine and teaching of the church. We do not and cannot she our own or one another's blood to atone for one another in the spiritual sense. The Church does not teach that in the least.

The church TODAY does not teach it - but the historic mormon church HAS taught it. For instance tenth Mormon prophet and president Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, "Man may commit certain grievous sins - according to his light and knowledge -that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved, he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone - so far as the power lies - for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail. Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent" (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:135,138 emphasis mine).

Your statement is found invalid Jeff.

Brigham Young did refer to various blood atonement ideas and thoughts he had, but what I just stated in the 1st paragraph about Christ is the doctrine and teaching of the church.

Misstatement again Jeff. Young didn't offer ideas and thoughts - he taught it as doctrine and was sustained by the membership. The fact that the teaching/doctrine was carried by even the 10th prophet shows otherwise.

The Journal of Discourses is not recognized or taught of as scripture for the church. It is a historical journal of many of the speeches and lectures those men gave, but they of themselves do not represent the doctrine that the Church espouses or follows. . . . . . But also in most of those cases, the people doing so are not really interested in what the Church actually teaches, they are more interested in trying to claim fault.

Oh really - plausible deniability. Yet your church teaches-

Words of Our Living Prophets
In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, the Liahona or Ensign magazine, and instructions to local priesthood leaders. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God”
(Articles of Faith 1:9).

You words read hollow Jeff. It isn't hard to go back and read the passages in context and see that the citations are fully supported. It is clear that the church TAUGHT these things as stated in your church's "Gospel Principles". Further they are commanded to teach only true and faithful doctrine at all times.

Well, people are imperfect. They say and do imperfect things. Even the best amongst us sometimes. It's why we all need Christ. But, anyone looking can generally find fault and broadcast it as such when they want to tear down or attack anyone else.

Yet that is exactly what mormonism has attempted since its inception. Yet is it tearing down to expose actual historical doctrinal teachings of your prophets and apostles that today have fallen into disfavor? Is that the excuse for polygamy? Is that the excuse for allowing blacks the priesthood?

And yet Christ Himself, in the New Testament in John when praying to His Father for hHis disciples and those that would hear them, indicated that their oneness was exactly what He wanted for His disciples and those whom they teach ("I would that they would be one, even as we are one,")...clearly a oneness in unity and purpose and not that they would meld together into the same body and/or spirit.

LOL, unity of purpose does not repudiate the doctrine of the Trinity Jeff - as it is a component of it as well. Best you start at the beginning of John - that places the whole book into context.

This is shown in many other places, like when God the Father and His Son were seen by the martyr Stephen, God on the Throne and Christ on His right hand, next to Him, seperately.

Show me specifically that Stephen saw a God of flesh and bone? No, he saw the doxa of God and the relating to the 'right hand' is positional not literal.

God the Father spoke at Christ's Baptism, the Holy Ghost descended, and Christ was in the water...all three of them seperately at His Baptism, and again at the mount of transfiguaration.

Once again, you fail at the scriptures. The Trinity also embraces the three fold expression at the baptism. You sound like your definition is typical mormon misrepresentation of the Trinity as modalism. Not surprising, can't defeat the real thing, misrepresent it. BTW, re read the transfiguration passages again.

Clearly, the Bible itself amply teaches what the oneness Christ refers to means...clear back to Genesis We can cover this ground again too...but it is clear we differ in interpretation on these points.

In your case - misinterpretation.

Which does not take away from, or lessen Christ's atonement for all of us and our utter reliance on Him and Him crucified.

Sorry, mormonism takes away because is lessens the atonement. It is irrefutable that mormonism teaches the atonement doesn't cover all sin - and that mormons are required to live sinless, perfect lives before that atonement can be available. BTW, mormons reject the cross and what it stands for.

We can beat the amoral liberals, socialists and marxists who beset us, together and with God in Heaven's help, and we can defeat the tyranical fundamental Islamics and other enemies who would inslave us all.

Sorry, my God is not the god of mormonism - so we cannot stand on that common appeal. And why join with mormonism - it has produced those enemies of the country like rommney and reid.

44 posted on 02/09/2012 11:50:14 AM PST by Godzilla (3/7/77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Turtlepower
Sorry you feel that way Turtle.

The differences I quote have biblical founding and footing. The unity I call for is sincere.

Jesus Christ is my personal Savior. I accept His atonement and grace in my life and teach the same to my family, irrespective of the other differences. I am glad He will be my judge on these matters for He knows my heart.

I try and follow His commandments as He taught, "if ye love me, keep my commandments." an, despite my frailties and weaknesses, try and live as He would live.

There is nothing weak about any of that...you just do not agree with it. And that is fine. The fundamnetal moral values are precisely what I embrace and teach my kids and grandkids, and have done so my whole life long, and are what make us free.

I have found Catholics, Evangelicals, Baptists, Methodists, Lutheramns, and many others who recognize the perils we face and have stood should to shoulder, me with them, and they with me, on numerous occassions, several generated right here oin FR over the years, to unite together, pray together, and face the trials and evils of our day on any number of issues.

When coming together, supping together, praying toggether in the name of Christ for His blessings and help...you know, not a one of us in those instances denied or tried to tear down the fundmental faith in Christ we all shared...and they knew who I was, that I was LDS while we worked together. And we accomplished a lot of good as a result.

I simply ask for people who are willing to do the same. That's all. Your choice...as it should be.

45 posted on 02/09/2012 11:57:26 AM PST by Jeff Head (Liberty is not free. Never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla
Sorry, Godzilla, Gospel Principles is a book Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, it is not regarded as scripture.

Not every word they speak or write is scripture and considered or taught as church doctrine, it is when they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost to do so...and then the doctrine is distributed by the Church through its leadership to the members who then can, through commen consent, accept it, or voice their objections.

The principle of continuing revelation is something we believe in, and believe that the Lord can speak to us today through that avenue as Paul taught that His church was made up of, "Apostles anbd Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone"....and, as He said, we would need that avenue "until we all come to a unity of the faith, to a perfect man." It is clear that we are not there yet...thus our belief in the need for it to be restored and continue.

Are there things in Gospel Principles that the Church does teach as its doctrine? Yes. Are there things in there it does not? Also, yes.

There is not misrepresentation or deception here...you seem eager and more than happy and willing to, in essence, call me a liar. Well, I deny it categorically and God will be the judge between us.

The difference is in interpretation...and that is what you are doing when you speak of the modal and doxa, and say it is figurative and not literal. But Stephen said what he said. Sort of like the 2nd amenment to the Constitution...I believe it's really pretty straight forward to anyone reading it...but you see it differently and that does not make either one of us a liar or misrepresenting anything.

I have not implied ar said that you were lying or trying to decieve anyone, Godzilla...simply that I do not agree with you and cited the reasons why. Others will decide as they will.

No need for futher discussion on this...it is clear we disagree and that you are not really interested in hearing what we really believe as I have tried to explain it to you as one who has been active in it for over 40 years...other than your desire to try and "prove" whatever I say about it as wrong.

Well, you'll never prove faith my friend...it is of the heart and born through the witness of the Spirit.

And that's fine...I pray God and Christ's blessing on you in your walk, wherever and whenever you sincerely try and bring others to Him as He would direct you and as He would do. I will go about doing the same.

46 posted on 02/09/2012 12:23:37 PM PST by Jeff Head (Liberty is not free. Never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

But trying to imply that somehow Romney or Mormons in general are going to placate and be sympathetic to our enemies in the fashion that Obama is, is simply not true.


Uh, how is that relevant to an anti-Mormon thread? Doncha know Mormons are the same as Muslims? I saw it cut-and-pasted ad nauseum on FR. It’s gotta be true!

Is a sarc tag even necessary? lol!


47 posted on 02/09/2012 12:28:47 PM PST by magritte (Nevermind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

It has nothing to do with my feelings. I merely pointed out there are significant differences between the theology of mormonism and historic Christianity. No Christian denomination accepts mormonism within Christendom, and throughout its history mormonism openly admitted it was vastly different from historic Christianity.

Using Christian terminology on your part doesn’t diminish the differences in interpretation. Mormons like you seem to want it both ways. You want to be accepted into mainstream Christianity, while at the same time you want you keep your exclusivity that mormonism is the only organization that knows the truth.

There can be NO spiritual unity between Christiantiy and mormonism, since their respective teachings are based upon vastly different interpretations. If you want political unity, then go spend more time on the political forums.


48 posted on 02/09/2012 12:32:50 PM PST by Turtlepower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head; Turtlepower; Godzilla; All
I have found Catholics, Evangelicals, Baptists, Methodists, Lutheramns, and many others who recognize the perils we face and have stood should to shoulder, me with them, and they with me, on numerous occassions, several generated right here oin FR over the years...

Jeff, I'm sure you're a tithing Mormon.

How is that relevant to what you just posted?

Because with your keyboard you extend an olive branch...yet with your wallet and bank accounts you join in a Mormon league which slanders the worldwide Christian church!

By parallel...Let's say, Jeff...
...a new church sprung up in your neighborhood.
...and your same-street neighbors were -- to fit your line above -- Catholic, Evangelical, Baptist, Methodist or Lutheran)...
...and this new church added "Revelation 23" to their Bible.

Let's also say some unnamed entities appeared unto their leader, and he reported as part of "Revelation 23": My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were ALL WRONG; and the Personage who addressed me said that ALL their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were ALL corrupt; [Note to All: this in fact "Mormon scripture" -- Joseph Smith 1, vv. 18-19 in the Pearl of Great Price]

Furthermore, the leader of this "newbie church" claimed he was "lay[ing] the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" [Note to All: This is in fact "Mormon scripture" -- Doctrine & Covenants 1:30]

Furthermore, the leader of this "newbie church" claimed that this "Only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" was the "church of the Lamb of God" -- and he translated an ancient document which said: "Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth." [Note to All: This is in face "Mormon scripture" - 1 Nephi 14:10 from the Book of Mormon]

Now let's say that this church grew to 14 million around the world -- and that about 5-6 of million of them tithed to spread the above message into over 100 different languages.

Fact: Mormon "scriptures" bash Christians 24/7 as the "church of the devil" ... a false and dead church...full of "corrupt" professing apostate believers who embrace 100% putrid creeds...
...and they do this in all kinds of languages every hour of every day.

Yet, Jeff, even though your tithe undergirds this 24/7 slander (on Lds.org; in Lds pubs; in Lds curricula) not a concern from you, Jeff? If not, why not? You don't seemingly mind if the Christian church is slandered in such an ongoing way?

So, Jeff...your keyboard speaks one thing; your wallet YELLS another.

And here you come across as someone who values integrity...somebody who integrates values to practices. Why would you give 10% of your lifetime income to an organization that slanders us in such ways? And commits that to hundreds of languages?

49 posted on 02/09/2012 12:34:08 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Colo, the Church believes that a restoration was necessary because the doctrine had gone wrong. We teach that and believe it. we believe furthermore that that very thing, the Apostacy and falling away, and the Restoration were prophesied of in the New Testament.

Doctrine at an ecclesiastical llevel and at the orgnaizational level is not the same as what people feel in their hearts.

The Church also teaches that there are millions and milliomns of good christian people and people of other faiths all over the world, who are good and seeking the Lord Jesus Christ with their heart, mind, and soul. We respect that and believe that the Holy Ghost and Spirit of Christ can convict any person to Christ. And they do.

We are not seeking to slander anyone, Colo...we are seeking simply to share what we believe to be true...just as you are on all of these threads. So the statement you have made is a two edge sword if I choose to view it that way...that somehow you are the “enemy” and out to get me.

Do some in our Church take the teachings you quote and somehow try and think they are better than everyone else and that other Churches are evil? Yes...but that is not the Spirit of Christ.

I do not view it that way...in fact I seek God’s blessings on you for any and all good you do to bring anyone closer to Christ. Sooner or later, in our faith, any sincere believer in Christ, who seeks after Him and Him crucified will be brought to His full truth.

That is what Christ taught His followers to do.

I believe that...I think you probably believe it to, except of course we each believe that the “truth” lies on our side of the fence.

As I have said before, if Christ appeared on this earth today, I would not only recognize Him but would bow down at His feet and bathe them with my tears...tears of joy and gratitude, and if He lifted my up and said, “Jeff, you need to stop attending the temple, that was all wrong,”...I would do exactly as He says to do.

I would hope, that if, on the other hand, He told you that you should attend the Temple and that the truth had in fact been restored, that you would turn to it. If your faith in Him is sincere...of course you would.

We would both do whatever He indicated.

That time will come. In the mean time, I believe we can each do good and help people come closer to Jesus Christ...and that is not a bad thing, and is what I am committed to doing.


50 posted on 02/09/2012 1:07:15 PM PST by Jeff Head (Liberty is not free. Never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-111 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson