Skip to comments.The Latter-day Saint Concept of Marriage [Unmarrieds 'not whole...complete' - per Mitt's profs]
Posted on 08/05/2012 9:01:28 AM PDT by Colofornian
...Latter-day Saints believe that in order to attain the best in life and the greatest happiness in this world and for the next, men and women must be married in the temple for time and eternity. Without the sealing ordinances of temple marriage, man cannot achieve a godlike stature or receive a fulness of joy.
...to enjoy the privileges and advantages...as...husbands and wives, parents and children, the ordinance that authorizes and sanctifies this most beautiful of all relationships is not acceptable if it contains the limitation until death do you part. For family relationships and conjugal associations to be eternal, the marriage contract must authoritatively state, for time and for all eternity.
...We cannot be held responsible for the sins...of our ancestors, but He has warned that in case of failure on the part of our posterity, if it can be attributed to our failure in our duty to them, then the sins will be upon our heads.
The Latter-day Saint concept of eternal progression includes eternal development, eternal increase of knowledge, power, intelligence, awareness, and all the characteristics and capacities that make for godhood. But in the economy of God, man cannot attain this state of continuing perfection in his unfinished or unmarried state...
When one accepts the conditions and obligations of this eternal partnership, he must realize that failure here is almost total failure. Whatever his successes may be in other fields of activity, if a man fails to discharge the obligations imposed by the eternal covenant, the appalling penalty will be the loss of celestial glory, accompanied by responsibility for the losses sustained by those with whom he made the contract and for whom he is responsible.
Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh...
(Excerpt) Read more at lds.org ...
Mitt Romney: Enrolled @ BYU February 1969; was there through Spring 1971 (How a reluctant Mitt Romney found his footing at BYU:As a student at a chaotic time for the Mormon school, the future candidate focused on family and his church)
As the author of this article, Hugh B. Brown, was NOT one of Mitt Romney's profs...BUT this article WAS included in a book which I'm sure WAS on the BYU campus during Mitt's years there -- in fact, I'm sure it was a BYU textbook for Dr. Blaine R. Porter's BYU courses he taught at the time of Mitt's student years. (It'd be interesting to find out if Mitt took a Dr. Porter course)
Dr. Blaine R. Porter WAS a BYU Professor of Child Development and Family Relationships during Mitt's years there. In 1966, three years before Mitt came on the BYU campus, Deseret Book Company (owned by the Lds church) published The Latter-day Saint Family: A Book of Selected Readings -- compiled (and probably edited) by Dr. Porter. Chapter 17 of this book was this Ensign article by Brown...plus a dozen words which failed to make the content of this Ensign article. (I have a copy of a re-published version of this Dr. Porter compiled book, published in 1968)
"...Latter-day Saints believe that in order to attain the best in life and the greatest happiness in this world and for the next, men and women MUST be married in the temple for time and eternity. Without the sealing ordinances of temple marriage, man cannot achieve a godlike stature or receive a fulness of joy. "
But, "Wait," you say...where is Brown specifically addressing "unmarrieds" in this graph as part of the Brown/Ensign article above? Well, that's the interesting part of THIS (above) version of Hugh B. Brown's writings. You see, while the above ran in the June 2011 official Lds church publication, Ensign Magazine, what is distinct about it from the book version that no doubt roamed around on the BYU campus during Mitt's years there?
Well, you see those "elipses" after the word "joy" at the END of the first graph of the excerpted version published above? I didn't place them there...the 2011 Mormon church editors edited in those elipses there...
The ORIGINAL paragraph was published by Bookcraft, Inc. (Salt Lake City) in 1960, when Brown wrote "You and Your Marriage"...One chapter (pp. 12-19 of that book) focused on "The Latter-Day Saint Concept of Marriage." This chapter was later lifted to be included as a chapter in the 1966/1968 book published by Deseret Book Company, owned by the Mormon church.
When you turn to p. 198 of the book published by Deseret and edited by BYU prof Porter, we see the dozen words that the Ensign editors edited out in 2011: Allow me to cite the graph as published by Brown in 1960 and by Deseret Book Company in 1968 [the missing dozen words are bold-faced]:
The Latter-day Saints believe that in order to attain the best in life and the greatest happiness in this world and for the next, men and women must be married in the temple for time and eternity. Without the sealing ordinances of temple marriage, man cannot achieve a godlike stature or receive a fulness of joy because the unmarried person is NOT a whole person, is NOT complete."
Do you hear that unmarrieds? Do you hear that singles?
The Mormon church was teaching throughout the 1960s (1960-1968) that unmarrieds were NOT whole people...NOT complete people!!!! Wow! What an open Mormon church condemnation of singles!!!!
And do you realize from a Mormon doctrinal view what this is teaching? It's not just that never-marrieds cannot -- in the eyes of the Mormon church -- achieve "a godlike stature" (a phrase which simply means "becoming a god")...if an unmarried cannot be in the Mormon "celestial kingdom" -- that means he/she can NEVER live in the presence of Heavenly Father...[documentation on that next post].
Allow me to repeat what Mitt Romney's profs were teaching him and other students like him in the late 1960s/early 1970s:
The LDS Church in 2011 realized how deeply offensive those dozen words were when they republished Hugh Brown's chapter in the 2011 official magazine, Ensign; and thus, edited them out. But Brown was one of the three highest-ranking Mormons throughout the 1960s; and his chapter was specifically chosen to be published and re-published for BYU students in the latter-1960s to be indoctrinated in...
From the article: The Latter-day Saint concept of eternal progression includes eternal development, eternal increase of knowledge, power, intelligence, awareness, and ALL the characteristics and capacities that make for godhood. But in the economy of God, man CANNOT attain this state of continuing perfection in his unfinished or unmarried state...
Brown is simply saying here that while the Mormons can promise all temple Lds even "godhood" -- in which you share "all the character & capacities which make for godhood" -- godhood doesn't apply for you unmarrieds...(More Mormon nonsense -- BOTH about becoming gods...and "singling" out singles as an "imperfect" status)
If you want to learn what else Mitt's profs were teaching him, see: The Reflections of Brigham Young on the Nature of Man and the State [What Mitt's profs taught him]
* "To be exalted in the highest degree and continue eternally in family relationships, we MUST enter into 'the new and everlasting covenant of marriage' and be true to that covenant. In other words, temple marriage is a requirement for obtaining the highest degree of celestial glory." (True to the Faith, p. 93, 2004)
* "Brethren, please remember: The highest degree of glory is available to you only through that order of the priesthood linked to the new and everlasting covenant of marriage" (Lds "apostle" Russell M. Nelson, "Honoring the Priesthood" Ensign (Conference Edition), May 1993, p. 40
* "LDS doctrine teaches that there is a Mother in Heaven as well as a Father, that Eve's eating of the forbidden fruit furthered God's Plan of Salvation (see Fall of Adam), that women must perform certain essential priesthood ordinances in the temple, and that the highest order of the priesthood and the complete blessings of exaltation are available only to the married couple; neither can enter exaltation without the other" (Encylopedia of Mormonism 2:490)
In other words, being that "exaltation" & the "celestial" kingdom are the ONLY degrees of glory in which a person can live together with Heavenly Father
Source: "Do you uphold your husband before God as your lord? 'What!--my husband to be my lord?' I ask, Can you get into the celestial kingdom without him? Have any of you been there? You will remember that you never got into the celestial kingdom without the aid of your husband...No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband; and if not, somebody will receive her as a servant" (Lds "apostle" Erastus Snow, Oct. 4, 1857, JoD 5:291)
Lds prophet Joseph F. Smith: ...this doctrine of the eternal union of the husband and wife and of plural marriage, is one of the most important doctrines ever revealed to man in any age of the world. Without it man would come to a full stop; without it we never could be exalted to associate with and become gods neither could we attain to the power of eternal increase... (Joseph F. Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 21, pp. 9-10)
Lds 'scripture' Doctrines & Covenants excerpted verses from chapter 76:
Note as you read about "church of the Firstborn": Lds says this title applies ONLY to the mainstream Lds church...Per both D&C 1:30 and this note by a BYU professor:
Exaltation is the greatest of all the gifts and attainments possible. It is available ONLY in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom and is RESERVED for members of the Church of the Firstborn. This exalted status, called eternal life, is available to be received by a man and a wife. It means not only living in Gods presence, but receiving power to do as God does, including the power to bear children after the resurrection. (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 2:479)
Doctrines & Covenants 76:
54 They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.
55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things
56 They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;
57 And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son.
58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God
59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christs, and Christ is Gods.
60 And they shall overcome all things.
...62 These shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever.
... 92 And thus we saw the glory of the celestial, which excels in all thingswhere God, even the Father, reigns upon his throne forever and ever;
...94 They who dwell in his presence are the church of the Firstborn
...95 And he makes them equal [to Himself] in power, and in might, and in dominion
NOTE: Clarification: The following verses are about the so-called Mormon "Terrestrial" world -- the supposed "middle" degree of glory where honest Christians and the like are supposed to be able to go...note that they won't receive "the fulness of the Father" -- which Mormon general authorities teach means "never" being able to live in Heavenly Father's presence:
...71 And again, we saw the terrestrial world, and behold and lo, these are they who are of the terrestrial, whose glory differs from that of the church of the Firstborn who have received the fulness of the Father
...77 These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.
NOTE: Clarification: The following verses are about the so-called Mormon 'Telestial' world -- the supposed "lowest" degree of glory...in which consists people sent to a temporary "hell" -- a sort of spirit prison...these people will supposedly be offered the Mormon "gospel" by spirit missionaries as a sort of "get out of eternal jail" card: D&C 76:
...102 Last of all, these all are they who will not be gathered with the saints, to be caught up unto the church of the Firstborn, and received into the cloud.
103 These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie.
104 These are they who suffer the wrath of God on earth.
105 These are they who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire.
106 These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet...
...109 But behold, and lo, we saw the glory and the inhabitants of the telestial world, that they were as innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven, or as the sand upon the seashore...
...112 And they shall be servants of the Most High; but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end. .
8th Lds 'prophet' George Albert Smith:
"There are some people who have supposed that if we are quickened telestial bodies that eventually, throughout the ages of eternity, we will continue to progress until we will find our place in the celestial kingdom, but the scriptures and revelations of God have said that those who are quickened telestial bodies CANNOT COME where God and Christ dwell, worlds without end." (Conference Report, October 1945, p.172)
BYU Prof Daniel H. Ludlow, A Companion to Your Study of the New Testament, p. 311:
"There are, of course, three kingdoms of glory to which resurrected persons will go--the celstial, terrestrial, and telestial...Of these three, ONLY the celestial is the kingdom of God; it is the kingdom RESERVED for the saints who obey the laws and ordinances of the gospel. Great hosts of persons will go to the other kingdoms and hence will not attain salvation in the full gospel sense."
Ludlow also addressed this in editing the Encyclopedia of Mormonism 1:368: "The Celestial Kingdom is RESERVED for those who receive a testimony of...
...Jesus and fully embrace the [Mormon] gospel; that is, they have faith in Jesus Christ, repent of their sins, are baptized by immersion by one having authority
[only in the Mormon church],
receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands
[only Mormon priesthood hands],
and endure in righteousness. All who attain this kingdom 'shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever (D&C 76:62)."
Since D&C 49 was a supposed March 1831 revelation..."it is lawful that he should have one wife" -- why was Joseph Smith introducing polygamy that year?
How do we know Joseph introduced polygamy that year?
Well, a group of Lds apologists that defend Mormonism is FAIR. On Aug. 7, 2009, held its annual apologetics conference. One of the presenters (Greg Smith) gave a boldly-titled workshop: Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Plural Marriage* (*but were afraid to ask) [Original url source: http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2009_Everything_You_Always_Wanted_to_Know_About_Plural_Marriage.html]
Greg Smith was wrapping up his workshop when he took one last question: "I am a woman and NOT a fan of polygamy, although I and my husband are both descendants of it. Is the text of D&C 132-58-66 the origin of the practice?" Answer (by Greg Smith): "The best historical evidence suggests that plural marriage was revealed to Joseph by 1831, and that he was teaching it to a limited circle by that year.28" (Footnote #28 of original transcript of this workshop went to: See discussion here: http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Initiation_of_the_practice)
So, let's put all this sequentially, shall we?
* Feb. 9, 1831: Joseph Smith writes as a "revelation" in D&C 42:22: "Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else."
* March, 1831: Joseph Smith writes another "revelation," D&C 49:15: Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have ONE wife, and they twain shall be one flesh...Now, the obvious question arises here: If these were revelations from the Mormon god, apparently the Mormon god changed his mind that very year: Per the admission of Lds apologists, by later 1831, Smith is embracing polygamy. What happened that changed Smith's -- or the Mormon god's mind?
Answer: 14 year-old neighbor Fanny Alger comes around. Hence, Joseph gets this sudden urge to establish polygamy so quickly after writing D&C 42 & D&C 49..
By 1833, 16 yo Fanny Alger has conveniently moved from her neighbors' home from parents into the Smith household to help with housekeeping. (For more on Fanny Alger, see: Alger History and Ancestry: Fanny W. Alger 1817-1879 [Mormon - Open]
My question to Mormons: Do you REALLY want to look the other way here? Is your God that fickle to change His mind so quickly in His revelations???
You know...Lds teach that if, say, a temple recommend Mormon man gets married in the temple "for eternity." And his wife dies; and he remarries another in the temple "for eternity," that man -- upon death -- becomes an eternal polygamist. (There's even a few Lds "apostles" who have done this). This paragraph yet concedes this "eternal polygamist" angle. If it's "not acceptable" for Mormon couples to ever include "until death do you part" -- then this Lds general authority was reinforcing this notion of eternal Mormon polygamy. (And yet mainstream Mormons deny they practice polygamy)
Allow me to explain what the Mormon church is currently teaching here: Not only does the Mormon church openly condemn unmarrieds, but this graph soundly condemns the divorced. If you review all the quotes in post #2, you'll see that when Brown says that a divorce = an "appaling penalty" of "the loss of celestial glory," the Mormon church is legalistically claiming that the divorced CANNOT live forever in the presence of Heavenly Father. Oh sure, Lds say, they can still live in heaven under a "lesser" degree of glory. But what they don't seem to understand is, that if you're not in the general presence of Heavenly Father, that IS NOT HEAVEN!!!
From the article: ...We cannot be held responsible for the sins...of our ancestors, but He has warned that in case of failure on the part of our posterity, if it can be attributed to our failure in our duty to them, then the sins will be upon our heads.
For those who argue that intergenerational guilt isn't possible, well, Mormons think otherwise.
Anyone but Obama.
Rather have Romney than an anti-American Communist running our country into the ground.
Romney is the candidate. Posting attacks on Mormonism is pointless and also has nothing to do with a political website.
I am single and a Catholic, therefore I do not care what the LDS description of marriage is.
The New Testament tells us what a marriage is, and how to behave within the married state. As for being single, in no place does Jesus state that persons who remain single are less in the eyes of God. Instead, Jesus makes it clear that those who do the will of the Father are “his brothers and sisters.” He also says that those who give up parents, brothers and sisters, and marriage for the sake of the Kingdom are great in heaven.
My Mom, who had 7 children, told me that once she was speaking to an elderly nun who was viewed as a holy and very spiritual person. My Mom told her how much she admired her, and the nun responded, “Yes, it is a good thing to be a religious person, but being a good parent to children is, in my opinion just a great or perhaps even a higher calling than entering a religious community.” Now, that nun was not only wise, but she was also humble.
It’s a good thing that we mortals are not the judges of mankind. We would be lousy in that role.
Who cares besides you? He isn’t Obama!!
I love the Christian religion and early/scholastic Catholic Theology. Faith and Reason is perfectly combined with Natural Law Theory and creates the most harmonic, natural, civil society possible for all people (if practiced).
God, your posts have become banal and boring.
And btw: “’...the unmarried person is NOT a whole person, is NOT complete’” is a concept that’s wide-spread and often a standard sermon.
Build a bridge and get over yourself.
This is in the religious area of the forum. It’s open season, even though you feel the urge to cover up the truth for political reasons.
“God, your posts have become banal and boring.
And btw: ...the unmarried person is NOT a whole person, is NOT complete is a concept thats wide-spread and often a standard sermon.
Build a bridge and get over yourself.”
What heathen church preaches that? The one you invented in your head since you’ve never been in Church your whole life?A man or woman is complete the moment he puts his faith in Jesus Christ. Maybe someone might argue that it is GOOD to Marry, yet even the scriptures recommend not marrying in times of tribulation, and also states that after death we will be “as the angels in heaven” neither marrying or being given in marriage.
You really shouldn’t pimp for a religious cult just because one of their leaders happens to be running for POTUS. There is a higher authority than the Republican Party.
Then tell us: Why did the Lds church editors edit out these dozen words -- and ONLY these dozen words -- from the June 2011 Ensign magazine article?
Why didn't they leave it as is -- as was originally published in 1960...and as originally re-published in 1966, 1968 -- to be used as a "textbook" for the likes of Mitt Romney?
The Lds church -- in 2011 -- obviously realized the offense of this statement...and deleted it...
Ya know, when you quote in-depth (like I do)...
...men who pretend to be Mormon "prophets" and "apostles"...
-- men who can order around THE next leader of the free world (if it's Mitt Romney) --
...then, I admit it: These in-depth quotations from Mitt's potential puppeteer-types are indeed "banal and boring."
But there's just no way to "get around" the charge that we're "misrepresenting" Mormonism -- or that Mormonism is so "misunderstood" -- a VERY common line you find in articles all across this country...unless you cite Lds general authorities firsthand...in-depth.
The reality is that even Christians -- Evangelicals who over 9 out of 10 SAY they consider the religion of a given candidate...
...Evangelicals who were 34% of the ENTIRE 2010 vote --
--don't even know what they might be voting for discernment-wise: See Most Christians Have No Idea What Mormons Believe [LDS truth claims oft' tucked away by Mormons]
So now you’re not even trying to be sneaky with your use of the religion forum to attack the politician. And we thought it would be the vermin media who would take this approach. How naive we were.
I take it you’re not going to keep it a secret that you’ll defend a damnable religious cult to defend a politician.
And then there’s the “you don’t go to the Celestial Kingdom unless you accept ‘the new and everlasting covenant’ (plural marriage). Don’t like that.
Actually, some mortals, here at FR, ARE judging mankind. They are lousy at it, too.
Well, MHG, I'm NOT "naive" about your past posts:
1. Here you are, MHGinTN, commenting on Sept. 24, 2007 in a RELIGION thread on a NON-Romney thread...in fact, almost hijacking colorcountry's thread in a Romneyfied direction (yours was only the SECOND post of the thread)...as Colorcountry's comment in post #1 neither mentioned Romney...nor did the thread content itself: "Can have people intimately familiar with the Mormonism heresies telling others the truth now can they! Weve seen here at FR how the dissembling and deceit runs deep within Mormonism. It will be too easy for the dnc goons to destroy Romney over Mormonism, so the Pubbies cannot afford to nominate that man.
Source: Post #2 Mormon ousted as an apostate [Religion section]
Why was it "OK" for you to bring Romney into the picture of pure "religion" thread in 2007...but now I am somehow "out of bounds" in doing it?
2. I don't even have to go back to '07, MHG. Here you are on Feb. 3, 2012 stating on a RELIGION thread (post #7) stating:
Milt will never be the President. If the establishment pubbies elect the two-faced abortionist, the media will make the LDS porpaganda ads (And Im A Mormon) trying to make MormonISM attractive look like the greatest campaign of evil ever devised. And all the media whoredom need do is keep hammering on the actual things taught in that faux-christianity religion. ... Which is of course yet another very sound reason to vote for Newt Gingrich, warts and all, rather than destroy the comity of this nation over a MormonISM tantrum to get elected president
Source: Post#7, Meet Mitt Romneys cousin (Uh-oh!) [Religion section]
3. Back in December 2007...
December 6 2007 to be exact...you claimed it wasn't simply us placing the focus more on Mormonism (than his liberal history)...but Mitt Romney himself! You said: "Squeal about posts like the one previous to mine demanding replay of doctrine for discussion and someone might, MIGHT think you were being genuine. Is Mittys strategy to make his Mormonism cult more a focal point than his liberal history finally wearing on your Mitt supporters?"
Source: Romney takes leap of faith with religion speech
Now indeed this last one was in the News-Activism section...but still...twas one of those common intersection threads ("faith" stuff being talked about on news section; and "politics" stuff being discussed in the religion forum...because, the world isn't as neatly "compartmentalized" as you would now like to dictate to everybody).
MHG, I found the above all in a quick 10 minutes' search...and I'm sure I could find DOZENS (if not HUNDREDS) of your past comments about Romney on RELIGION threads...Do you want me to do that and list them for you -- and the world -- to see?
What, MHGinTN? Have you had a "de-conversion?"
And worse...not only have you had a likely "de-conversion" -- but ya know...I can understand a FREEPER who simply "changes his mind" about his previous positions...
...that indeed happens...
...but for you to then to go and REPEATEDLY RAIL on others -- as you have now done on about three threads -- for something that you yourself have repeatedly done posting-wise...with no acknowledgment about that...
...Well, the above is the mark of two-faced hypocrisy...to the nth degree...
I quite simply challenge you to repent before the Lord thy God.
I have known and lived with Mormons for years and I am not a Mormon, but the are very good law abiding taxpayers and not Muslim.
(Well...of course...a LOT are...but so were the Pharisees in Jesus' incarnational years!)
And for those Lds that are not -- is that something you would emphasize to the victims of these financial frauds?
Lds members have fleeced over 1 & 1/2 billion from fellow Mormons the past few years alone! Guess what? They initially didn't regret "doing business" with them, either!!!
(2010 Source puts it at over $1.4 billion...and MORE has been uncovered since then!) : Mormons Now Losing Billions to Affinity Fraud
Can you fill me in any other religious sect that has less than 2% of the overall population (1.7%) -- that has launched at least $1.4 billion worth of fraud schemes vs. fellow sect members the past two or three years?
If you only have time to click on one article link below...read this one: JOHN L. SMITH: Thieves in the temple: How 'affinity fraud' hurts LDS church members
Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal, Sept. 12, 2010 Be sure to read the comments of FBI special agent Cameron Saxey (who is Lds)...the article mentions how the Utah jurisdictional Securities Fraud Task Force was working on 100+ cases...meaning that $1.4 billion total doesn't tell it all!
The sad individual accounts [Indeed: Pray for the victims, most Lds]:
* All in the Mormon Family Mortgage Fraud [Re: Idaho fraud]
Source: Conservative Babylon.com, June 27, 2012
* Episode Detail: The Mormon Madoff - American Greed: Scams, Scoundrels and Scandals
Source: TV Guide.com re: series American Greed: Scams, Scoundrels, and Scandals, June 20, 2012
* Former LDS bishop gets jail, probation for massive fraud
Source: Provo Herald, June 7, 2012
* LDS Bishop Pleads Guilty To Fraud
Source: Kutv.com, June 7, 2012
* Utah investors caught up in alleged $170M fraud: SEC says 2 men committed fraud as they raised $170M to build Caribbean resorts, and that 250 of the 1,700 alleged victims are from Utah
Source: Salt Lake Tribune, May 31, 2012
* Beware of affinity fraud predators who exploit trust, LDS spokesman warns
Source: Fraud College.org, April 2, 2012
* Former LDS bishop charged with fraud, pleads not guilty
Connecticut Criminal Defense Blog, March 29, 2012
* Former Mormon Bishop In Trumbull Charged With Investor Fraud
Source: Hartford Courant, March 27, 2012
* The LDS Church Issues a Strong Position on Affinity Fraud
Source: Utah Securities Fraud.com, March 7, 2012
* Affinity Fraud Called a Destructive Crime at Conference
Source: Lds.org, Feb. 20, 2012
* Church Representative to Address Fraud College [From the official Lds Web site]
Source: Lds.org, Feb. 15, 2012
* Affinity Fraud statement
Source: Official Mormon Newsroom.org, Undated (Early 2012)
* Father, son used Mormon connections to commit $220M Ponzi scheme (Utah case)
Source: Mormon church-owned KSL.com, Dec. 16, 2011
* Former LDS bishop cons elderly man out of life savings, police say
Source: Provo Daily Herald, Oct. 19, 2011
* Provo councilman Steve Turley charged with felonies [LDS High Council Member]
Source: Provo Herald, July 27, 2011
* Feds arrest St. George business man, philanthropist for mail fraud
Source: Mormon-church owned KSL.com, June 11, 2011
* Former LDS leader charged in fraud against Ute football coach, others
Source: Salt Lake Tribune, June 8, 2011
* Suspected Mormon Con Artist Pleading Guilty to $78M Scam
Source: Streetsweeper.org, May 31, 2011
* Mormon Madoff? Source: Financial Fraud Law.com, May 27, 2011
* A Fraud Played Out on Family and Friends
Source: New York Times, May 26, 2011
* St. George investor ordered to jail [ex-Lds bishop]
Source: MidUtahRadio.com, April 15, 2011
* Using trust to steal (Utah affinity fraud)
Source: Ogden (UT) Standard Examiner, Feb. 3, 2011
* JOHN L. SMITH: Thieves in the temple: How 'affinity fraud' hurts LDS church members
Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal, Sept. 12, 2010
* Local political gadfly arrested for exploiting elderly woman
Source: Provo Daily Herald, May 4, 2010
* Preying on the faithful: Though Mormons often victims, LDS church skips fraud-prevention event
Source: Salt Lake Tribune, May 2, 2010
* Kaneohe swindler is sentenced
Source: Honolulu Star-Bulletin, April 6, 2010
* Investors with troubled firm have Mormon ties
Source: Austin American Statesman, Jan. 16, 2010
* Man Who Defrauded Fellow Church Goer Pleads Guilty
Source: www.connect2utah.com (KUTV) Jan. 7, 2010
* Lindon Man Accused of Trying to Kill Witnesses to Alleged Scam
Source: MidUtahRadio.com, Nov. 19, 2009
* KSL 5 News investigates affinity fraud
Source: KSL.com Nov. 9, 2009
* Mormon victims are caught up in $50M scam to sell gold bullion
Salt Lake Tribune, Sept. 18, 2009
* LDS Church returned $200K in Southwick Tithing
Source: AP, Sept. 14, 2009
* Merriman's church donations may be tained [Momon Ponzi schemer's tithe monies ill-gotten?]
Source: Denver Post, April 24, 2009
* Man Who Defrauded Fellow Church Goer Pleads Guilty
Source: Fox News, April 8, 2009
* Calif. Man Charged with $40 million Ponzi scheme
Source: AP, March 20, 2009
The bottom line here is that you would expect a church that has 2% of the nation's population to have about 2% of affinity fraud cases -- even if they were as criminal as the atheists and agnostics! [You would expect them to have less than 2% if there was a true higher moral standard at operation here]. You don't expect cases involving $one and a half BILLION!
And, of course...If Joseph Smith committed banking fraud...and if Joseph Smith committed massive spiritual fraud...then we would expect that seed to be planted within the Mormon church...and to germinate widely.
Joseph Smith's banking scam: Joseph Smith's Mormon Banking Scam
Should read: 2009 - 2012
“Romney is the candidate. Posting attacks on Mormonism is pointless and also has nothing to do with a political website.”
THIS political website has a Religion Forum, where this article is posted. Whether RINOmney wins or not has nothing to do with whether mormonism is false.
“I have known and lived with Mormons for years and I am not a Mormon, but the are very good law abiding taxpayers and not Muslim.”
It is true.
Muslims believe in one false God. Mormons believe in millions of false gods.
Muslims believe in one false God. Mormons believe they are becoming a god.
Muslims believe in polygamy. Mormons believe in polygamy.
Muslims suppress women. Mormons suppress women.
Wait, what was your point?
Oh, yea. Obama is a muslim who worships a false god. RINOmney is a liberal statist who worships a false god.
How telling, that you collect past posts to use, out of context, to promote this use of the religion forum in order to continuing your purposed attacks on the politician. Are you under the mistaken notion that you are respected for this misuse of the Freerepublic religion forum and ardent hatred of Mitt Romney? I must have pricked your conscience at leats a little bit for you to spend such energy to search out sentences which you can take out of context and use to try and defend your brazen politican attacks using the religion forum. Enjoy yourself, if you can. You are failing miserably at trying to open Mormon eyes tot he heresies inherent in that cult, and I think you know that, so it appears that you have a hidden agenda, of attacking Romney. It certainly comes across that way.
It obviously isn’t “hidden” if Mitt’s name is right in the title. I guess it’s okay to point out that Obama is a farking Muslim with ties to a Liberation Theolgy (socialist) church which utterly warps the Gospel and is therefore a type of cult, but NOT okay to talk about Mitt Romney’s Mormon cult? And I actually, independently, noticed some of your posts during the primary bashing Romney for his Mormonism. I guess it’s something you’re only allowed to do when it is politically convenient?
But that’s really the thing here. We don’t win politically by pointing out the truth of Mormonism, or of any of these sleezebag politicians who also happen to be Republicans. This is a spiritual debate. A debate for the soul. Will you defend a religious cult for political purposes, or will you not blush and instead embrace the fight against damnable heresy and deception in the world, even when it touches on YOUR interests? Obviously, I’m going with the latter. Don’t know about you!
When someone drags and pastes posts from 2007 into a thread in 2012, trying to use those posts out of context to squelch the poster, you can be assured they are not concerned about the poster's spiritual condition and are all about 'winning an argument ont he forum' and perhaps justify themselves. Let them rave. They expose themseles the more in doing that.
I don’t understand the difference between setting up a Mormon Expose’ thread and your previous posts on these same topics, where you also mentioned Mitt Romney? I suppose we could mention Glenn Beck for awhile, if perhaps it would make you feel better about the topic at hand. I wonder what a random Mormon coming into the thread is going to think, believing it is just a anti-Romney thing and not an issue with MormonISM, as you put it, because all the Christians are divided over the issue.
Coincidentally, my goal is to expose Mitt Romney as well as every other fiend. I have no problem with Twofers either!
So you’ve...never been to a wedding where the minister expressed the idea?
I mean...seriously. The idea that I’m interacting with presumably functional adults who haven’t recognized the crystal clear, obvious and inherent truth of that statement, is literally a little bizarre to me. Surreal, even.
It boils down to being a question of believing what men have told me, or believing what God has created. Because if that statement is false, the reality of humanity God made for us, is false.
We were created in such a way as to require our participation in the propagation agreement we call “marriage”. Parts of our bodies and minds are solely devoted to it. Our psyches are designed to help us more easily participate in it. We have emotions useful only for that purpose. Joining into that agreement is usually difficult and always involves a huge portion of our lives. And there are many astonishing and important experiences that occur in that agreement between a man and a woman, that are impossible to experience any other way.
So, when I consider how much effort God expended in designing things that way, and how astonishingly beautiful it ends up being, it’s impossible to think life is complete without it.
If you think it is, you probably have some problems to work out.
Stick around n00b, you may eventually figure it out, if you actually want to. Don’t be taken in by quotes taken out of context. Perhaps, after spending so much time searching back through my posts (he actually get as far back as 2007! ... and I’ve been opening opposing the ISM for at least ten years at FR), Colonic will post the links tot he threads, so you can read the quoptes in full context.
Stick around n00b, you may eventually figure it out, if you actually want to. Don’t be taken in by quotes taken out of context. Perhaps, after spending so much time searching back through my posts (he/she/it actually got as far back as 2007! ... and I’ve been opening opposing the ISM for at least ten years at FR), Colonic will post the links tot he threads, so you can read the quoptes in full context.
Stick around n00b, you may eventually figure it out, if you actually want to. Don’t be taken in by quotes taken out of context. Perhaps, after spending so much time searching back through my posts (he/she/it actually got as far back as 2007! ... and I’ve been openly opposing the ISM for at least ten years at FR), Colonic will post the links tot he threads, so you can read the quoptes in full context.
Stick around n00b, you may eventually figure it out, if you actually want to. Don’t be taken in by quotes taken out of context. Perhaps, after spending so much time searching back through my posts (he/she/it actually got as far back as 2007! ... and I’ve been openly opposing the ISM for at least ten years at FR), Colonic will post the links tot he threads, so you can read the quotes in full context.
“I mean...seriously. The idea that Im interacting with presumably functional adults who havent recognized the crystal clear, obvious and inherent truth of that statement, is literally a little bizarre to me. Surreal, even.
It boils down to being a question of believing what men have told me, or believing what God has created. Because if that statement is false, the reality of humanity God made for us, is false.
We were created in such a way as to require our participation in the propagation agreement we call marriage. Parts of our bodies and minds are solely devoted to it. Our psyches are designed to help us more easily participate in it. We have emotions useful only for that purpose. Joining into that agreement is usually difficult and always involves a huge portion of our lives. And there are many astonishing and important experiences that occur in that agreement between a man and a woman, that are impossible to experience any other way.
So, when I consider how much effort God expended in designing things that way, and how astonishingly beautiful it ends up being, its impossible to think life is complete without it.
If you think it is, you probably have some problems to work out.”
So can you provide a quote of this teaching of some minister claiming that people are incomplete, not whole, unless they get married?
Was the Apostle, therefore, arguing that he prefers people should be “incomplete” in times of tribulation?
1Co 7:7-9 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. (8) I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. (9) But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
There is a great deal of difference between the Mormon doctrine on marriage and the Christian one. The first and most obvious being that marriage has no change on your physical or spiritual self. You are not made “complete” by getting married, and you are not made “incomplete” by being divorced. I’d be really surprised to hear of any minister making such a claim.
I mean...seriously. The idea that Im interacting with presumably functional adults who havent recognized the crystal clear, obvious and inherent truth of that statement, is literally a little bizarre to me. Surreal, even."
Not LDS either. Glad there’s no religious test required for public office, and glad we’re not looking to elect the national preacher.
Romney has made it clear he supports Christian values, which is important, but beyond that I see no reason not to vote for someone just because they are LDS.
1 Corinthians 7
New International Version (NIV)
Concerning Married Life
1 Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman. 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
Concerning Change of Status
17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping Gods commands is what counts. 20 Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.
21 Were you a slave when you were called? Dont let it trouble youalthough if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lords freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christs slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings. 24 Brothers and sisters, each person, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.
Concerning the Unmarried
25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lords mercy is trustworthy. 26 Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27 Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
29 What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.
32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lords affairs how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this worldhow he can please his wife 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lords affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this worldhow she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.
36 If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. 37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virginthis man also does the right thing. 38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.
39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. 40 In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she isand I think that I too have the Spirit of God.
Your statement IS correct; IF FreeRepublic were a mere 'political' website: but it is not.
Itr is MUCH greater than mere mouthings of various factions; each vieing for power in what seems to be a powerless generation.
No; JimRob, in his wisdom, has created a meeting place where not only liberalism and/or conservatism is discussed; but includes the greater world which encompasses religion, humor, dispair; high ideals and low: the entire realm of human experience can be seen here.
It is our unique AMERICANism that all these forces tug and push against.
Lament NOT that 'religion' is discussed (and cussed) here; but rather rejoice that it is and that it CAN be!
No; he is not.
The parties have NOT had their conventions yet; and who knows?
MAybe BOTH Mitt and Barak will get tossed under the respective buses!
The BEST you can say about Mitt is that "He isnt Obama!!" ?
Ok; now you've given one ANTI-christian view.
Here; have another...
THE BOOK OF JACOB
THE BROTHER OF NEPHICHAPTER 224 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
Or even HERE:
1 Timothy 3:2-3
2. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
3. not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.1 Timothy 3:12
A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.Titus 1:6
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTSSECTION 1325157, Emma Smith is counseled (commanded) to be faithful and true; 5866, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth.51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to aprove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, areceive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been afaithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an ahundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of beternal lives in the eternal worlds.
The entire MORMON 'religion' is OFFENSIVE to Christ; so when will they delete ALL of it?
Here ya go!!