Mormonism: What the Latter Day Saints think of Islam [Indicator of how Mitt perceives Islam?]

Pakistan Independent ^ | Feb. 7, 2012

[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….”

[Colofornian]

(Well...it looks like at least Romney has the Muslim and lockstep Mormon vote all locked up!)

[Colofornian]

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)

[Osage Orange]

Good post....

Fair accurate observations....

[Colofornian]

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.

[svcw]

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.

[Scoutmaster]

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:

[svcw]

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.

[patriot08]

Quite a similarity...polygamy, belief in the superiority of men over women.

[svcw]

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

[Jeff Head]

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.

[Jeff Head]

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

[jmacusa]

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

[jmacusa]

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

[Elsie]

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.

[Colofornian]

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?

[Jeff Head]

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

[Godzilla]

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.

[x_plus_one]

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.

[Jeff Head]

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.

[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.

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.