Pat Boston, you need to think before you open your mouth. Romney served a mission for 2 years, which is more work than you will ever see, apparently.

Forrest: .... all women will bear the brunt of laws and regulations in which republicans push for that basically codifies their personal particular religious beliefs

AGAIN.... what exact laws and regulations are being presented on the national level that "women will bear the brunt" of?

Free birth control is a right? Having others pay for your sexual practices is a freedom expressed in the Constitution .... what is being TAKEN AWAY?

They have not heard one complaint about Viagra being covered by insurance, or the father of the child watching ultrasounds before an abortion, now have they.

Stupid argument. Is Obama mandating that women have to pay for men's Viagra? Insurance can cover / offer it if they want to ....

The funny part is that ED is actually a health problem ... something not working as opposed to getting pregnant which is indication that everything is working as it should!

Fathers make the abortion decision?

Judge Bill, you see lots of black missionaries in white shirts riding around on bikes - in Africa, Europe, Asia, South America, and even here in America. Get off your couch once in a while and see that there is a whole world outside of your limited experience.

Bob, what you fail to realize, is that a lot of birth control drugs are not only for birth control. The help women with a lot of other problems. Just like your so called ED argument. But you are so far right you will never see or accept that. You are a wasted argument.

Feisty, next you'll be telling me that G. W. Bush and Dick Cheney were not over there!!!!

Epic Journey, I respect your view. GOD Bless our US Military, and I thank them for their service.

Agirl -

Why would you say we (Obama and the "libs") "fabricated" a war on women?

I explained it in #1.1 ... no reading comprehension skill, huh?

We women are attacked constantly because Republicans desperately want to rule over our bodies, and if you can't see it, and you can't hear it, well then you're either a member of that group who are trying to rob women of our freedom, or you're just in denial.

AGAIN ... WHAT EXACT FREEDOM HAVE THEY STATED ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL THAT THEY WANT TO ROB WOMEN OF?

You can do anything you want to with your body ... what are they wanting to take away?

Can you not articulate it ... are you that obtuse that you have no understanding of the issues, you just insipidly chant the bumper sticker mantras?

As for women being "stupid"

Women are awesome .... no joe and JAS are twice as good at this stuff as I am.

I think Republicans must be stupid if they there is any chance at all of getting the women's vote, because there is absolutely NO CHANCE

An informed vote would demolish Obama.

"We're just not going to have a discussion about religion" said Romney

15% of Americans believe Obama is a Muslim - they discuss that all the time!

Rev. Franklin Graham is not sure Obama is a Christian - they discuss that all the time!

My faith says you should stand up for your faith all the time. Why can't Romney do that?

Feisty he probably went when he turned 19 like every other LDS missionary. Way to make up a reason that fits your derogatory narrative!

Rom-nut and the Cult of Mormonism.

I wonder what Mr. Flip Flop, Etch-a-Sketch has to say about the Mormons baptising dead Jews despite agreements to end the practice which the Jews find disrespectful

Sounds like some kind of weird cult to me.

The ignorance on this message board is astounding.

Judge Bill are you seriously that ignorant? Point in fact. The LDS church does not in fact discriminate or have prejudices against blacks. Your missionary comment is completely false. Why? My cousin is black and he is currently a missionary in Nicaragua. Interracial marriage is not a problem either. Why? I have a good friend that married a guy from Ghana, and they are happily married with a little 2 year old son. See you just plainly are prejudice against the LDS church, without any basis for your opinion. And if you don't have any basis for it then you probably shouldn't share it.

Judge Bill, there are a lot of LDS missionaries from Nigeria and other areas of the world that fall into this category. According to Wikipedia, in 1997, an estimated 500,000 members were black. Since then the amount has grown. There are now two LDS temples (not to be confused with churches) currently active in Africa.

Mormon.org will even let you search for Mormon members who are black (or other ethnicities), and many of these people have talked about their missionary experiences.

Someone has even set up a site that is dedicated to LDS members that are black at blacklds.org. The testimonies section include many that have served missions.

The LDS church's official stance on the topic is this:

"The Church’s position is clear—we believe all people are God’s children and are equal in His eyes and in the Church. We do not tolerate racism in any form.

For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church."

Source: mormonnewsroom.org (which is an official site of the LDS church)

Feisty, next you'll be telling me that G. W. Bush and Dick Cheney were not over there!!!!

Nor have the Bush, Dick's or Willard's offspring ever spent a day in the military...

I wonder why that is?

Now war on women comments. They are completely ridiculous. The whole platform for Republicans is that individuals with personal freedom also must take personal responsibility for their actions. I have talked with many women and they feel that it is a good idea that those seeking to have an abortion should have a mandatory ultrasound, so that they can see the possible consequences of their choices. Personally the contraceptive bills that have been going through congress a completely wrong. The government should have no say in what is covered in insurance companies or other companies period. If you want contraceptives then YOU take the responsibility and go buy yourself some. You can't afford it? Doubt it. People can afford I-phones even in 3rd world countries. I'm pretty sure that you can afford it too. People want a hand out and that is the worst thing that the government or anyone else can do.

Take responsibility for your actions.

verno -

Bob, what you fail to realize, is that a lot of birth control drugs are not only for birth control.

Of course I do. I also realize that insurance companies offer birth control pills for treatment in those cases.

You didn't?

Also, why is it that Fluke and other libs don't argue for the other treatments ..... oh .. they are covered too?

You are a wasted argument.

Why did you waste time .... refuting nothing in that very argument?

Hey Bob didn't you see the new polling information.

Romney led Obama in February by 2 points where women were concerned.

Now, after the war on women, Romney is behind by 18 points.

It's very real.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/poll-shows-obama-making-big-gains-female-voters-170245867.html

that his time as a local LDS ward leader and then stake-president in Massachusetts allowed him to work hands-on with regular folks who needed help:

Let's see, only regular folks who needed help, meaning code for Mormon. What about the non-regular folks who need help, those people who are not Mormon. Does he really want to fool us into thinking in his role as LDS Ward leader, he was focused on any other population group other than LDS?

Hey Bob didn't you see the new polling information.

Romney led Obama in February by 2 points where women were concerned.

Now, after the war on women, Romney is behind by 18 points.

Thanks for validating my point as to why Obama and libs created the fake war / the demogoguery .... it always works on the uninformed.

Most notably, in October, an evangelical pastor from Dallas labeled Mormonism a "cult" during a speech in Washington D.C.

The mormon news channels in the salt lake area always refer to the different sects of the LDS religion as cults - mainly because they didn't cave in to political pressures to cease plural marriage. So, in their opinion they are no longer a "cult" simply because they supposedly gave up multiple wives.

The LDS church does not in fact discriminate or have prejudices against blacks.

Seems as though somebody needs to get ahold of an old version of the book of mormon. There were very obvious and explicit references to the plight of blacks. When the church realized that they were about to take a hit in the supreme court regarding blacks they had "divine revelation" and their texts were rewritten. Simply rewriting a fantasy book is going to miraculously remove racism? Probably as effective as the Brown v. Board of Education ruling did.

And if you don't have any basis for it then you probably shouldn't share it.

While it is admirable that you have two examples of racial acceptance, does that basis negate the millions of other mormon opinions?

I'm sorry people but if religion wasn't an issue for JFK (the Pope was going to run America) and religion wasn't an issue for Obama (remember his crazy preacher that hates white people) then it is not an issue for Romney.

Love him or hate him. Can't have it both ways!

He had a right to get wierd because up until not too long ago his "faith" taught that blacks were lesser beings in fact animals. Funny but it was an actual republican that asked the question not the librahl media.....

I pay very close attention to the news and politics and I still have no idea where any of you are getting this "war on women" argument. Is it because I'm not trying to kill my baby???

Fiest,

That is called Riches and POWER baby girl...............Republicans don't have a lock on that one!!

I don't hold any grudges. If I were rich and powerful, my kids wouldn't go either.

Ruken - one thing yo need to learn. Any written knowledge is someone's opinion whether or not it is really factual or accurate is always a question. Often they have never actually experienced what they write about. I suggest you actually get to know a Mormon on a daily basis, read some of their writings, and have them explain exactly what they understand about their own writings. I don't mean 10 minutes, an hour or a few days. Interact with them for several months and then make a decision about them.

Geez a stupid cartoon as a true representation of a religion or any situtation is nothing more than an insult.

. I am not making trouble, but honestly think back of all the norman missionaries you seen, did you ever see a black missionary ???? The answer is NO, because of Mormons being prejudiced against BACKS.

I know a lot of black Missionaries 7 were from Africa in my mission. Why is it people make every thing about race? their are more Mormons in California then Utah. and there are more LDS members out side of the us then in it.

(like they do to the Book of Mormon).

Tryreading the original version. There is no doctrinalchanges. How many English versions of the Bible are there? Take a look at the old KJV and you will see Italicised text these are words added to help us understand it.

Like the guy in Farmer's Insurance commercial asks "Okay agents, what did we learn here today?" We learned that Bob 1805084 got spanked in this thread.

Speaking of the huge swing of women voters towards Obama, I just want to thank Rush Limbaugh for the huge boost he gave democrats on his radio show, he has been a tremendous help, and I know the presidsent is very grateful. Thanks Rush!

If birth control has been covered by insurance for over 30 thirty years, why all the concern suddenly? Don't get me wrong I am glad this concern popped up just in time for republicans to lose the election, but how come this was not an outrage thirty years years ago.

War on women. Interesting use of words. Sounds like the wording of your cause has been changed in order to invoke negativity against those who disagree with you. The reality is that those who advocate abortion are promoting a very real War on Children. Remember: "A rose called by any other name still smells sweet." (a rough quote from Shakespeare)

Most of the killing of unborn children is out of a motivation of convenience ("I'm not ready to be pregnant.", "I can't afford a child.", "I have a career or education to consider.", "I have no way to care for a baby." etc.). If this logic makes sense, then why not extend the rights of women to allow the killing of children for a couple of years after birth? After all, isn't a 1-year old or a difficult 2-year old an inconvenience? They are also just as helpless as the unborn so they'd not be able to ward off their elimination.

Obviously, I am being ridiculous. Immanual Kant suggested that a good test to determine if a particular action was moral or not was to take that action to the extreme and apply it universally. If it still made sense, then perhaps its morality was intact. If it no longer made sense after being universally applied, then it was probably immoral. Those who think the suggestion of extending abortion to children after birth is ludicrous should consider the real differences between eliminating children after birth vs. eliminating them before they are born. Both are living human beings, unless you have rationalized and perverted your belief system that the unborn child is not human.

I've never understood how the Liberal could be so outspoken in the areas of needless wars and killing, gun control, and other issues that the Liberal advocates to save life, yet promote the extermination of those unable to fend for themselves in the name of a Woman's Right to Choose.

Regardless of your academic rationalization of abortion, the reality is that it is the elimination of a defenseless segment of society that has no voice in its own fate. Our society is truly decadent.

I'm so flipping sick of hearing about religion. Any religion. Deal with it people, your religions don't matter in our government and society. They don't matter anywhere but in your hearts. Get the hell out of here with your sanctimonious, presumptuous, "I know what God wants", BS. Before I vomit all over your holy books.

Pertaining to the "War on Women", here we go. Again...

Listen guys, the female "agenda" for lack of a better word, is really very simple and straight forward...

1. To be able to sleep with a man, if I so desire, without facing scorn or judgment.

2. To have access to affordable/dependable BC and sexual/reproductive health services.

3. If I fall victim to rape/assault/harassment, to have access to justice that is equivalent to the crime committed against me and trust in my society that I will be safe if I come forward.

4. If I fall on hard times, most likely due to being a single parent (child support is surprisingly easy to dodge), to have access to reasonable programs that will assist me in regaining my feet and protecting my children.

5. To be paid the same as a male with an equivalent work/educational history, and job. Also, to have access to recourse against employers who fail to do this.

6. If I find myself scared, alone, and pregnant, to be able to make a decision that effects my body and my life (and only MY body and MY life only) without being subjected to name calling or vitriolic, religious based hate. Or any hate for that matter. Specifically from people who have never been in my shoes. And most importantly, to have the same right to make decisions about my body and the same right to privacy as a man.

That's it. Is it really so outrageous of us to ask for these things from our society that we contribute to? Find me a Republican who's position doesn't contradict every item on this list, and I'll consider voting for him/her. Until than, don't tell me the GOP has my gender's best interests at heart.

Thank you Sarah.

Very interesting read about Mormons at www.deism.com. This belief for many of the country's founders has a former Mormom discussing his experiences.

I really see Romney as a Deist believer!

@Sarah

"If I find myself scared, alone, and pregnant, to be able to make a decision that effects my body and my life (and only MY body and MY life only)"

This is where the problems come in. You can do anything you want to your body as long as it isn't affecting anyone else's i.e. your baby.

You say religion hates, and I admit that it isn't always pretty. However, in this culture, it is easy to adopt the mentality of being able to do what you want, when you want, even if it isn't right. I'm sure that there are many caring and religious people who would be willing to assist with the baby as opposed to getting rid of him/her out of convenience. I don't want to come across as hateful, and I realize it can't be easy to be alone and pregnant. However, as you asked me to be put in your shoes, I also ask you to put yourself in mine. Imagine millions of people who are already walking and talking being killed for being a 'burden.' Wouldn't you try to be an advocate to stop it. Wouldn't you be outraged by it. That is how I feel, and that is why I do what i do. I feel your body should be entitled to the same rights as a man. However, you have an important job of bringing a child into the world. When another human being is depending on your body for survival, please feel free to take care of it at least for nine months. There are many charities that you could call and ask for monetary or personal asistance. Eventually, you may want your child back and would be glad you chose to let it live. Try your best. That's all I ask for.

CC,

This is where the problems come in. You can do anything you want to your body as long as it isn't affecting anyone else's i.e. your baby.

Please provide credible evidence, accepted by the vast majority of the medical and scientific community of when HUMAN LIFE (I.E. HUMANITY) begins. Otherwise you can post all of the arguments, assertions, beliefs, morals, Bibles, God's word, Jesus's word, Yoda's word, partridge in a pear tree's word, statements, books, feelings, ideas, thoughts, and chipmunk balls you want. What you can't do is tell other people what to do, at least until you have that evidence.

Keep your beliefs out of our lives. That's all I ask for.

P.S. I ALSO don't know what if feels like to be alone and pregnant, that why I wouldn't be presumptuous enough to tell people in that position what to do.

epicjourney

Pat Boston, you need to think before you open your mouth. Romney served a mission for 2 years, which is more work than you will ever see, apparently.

The "mission" Romney served was to find converts to the Mormon faith. Mormons believe they will achieve a higher level in the hierarchy of the afterlife if they can convince others to become Mormons.

How does that relate to actually helping people who need help?

Pious baloney!

Kaybee,

Absolutely wrong. I have never heard that you achieve a higher level in the afterlife based on the amount of people you convert to "Mormonism." Only after accepting Jesus sacrifice, and then how you lived your life will determine where you go after you die.

@Sarah,

Is there a consensus on when human life begins? As far as I have heard, no.

Personally I find abortion objectionable, however, I can understand that others would like to use abortion and feel that if person x wants to have an abortion (up to a certain point) then I'm ok with it being legal. But what is that point? And how do we define it? Is that point birth? Is that point when the heart begins to beat? Is that point when the baby could survive? Is that point when the baby can feel pain? Is it a point at which the baby is determined to be free from major issues? If that point was defined (maybe by law) then I think a majority of people would get over the abortion issue. There would be those on the one side that would never settle for any abortions happening and there would be those on the other side that would never settle for preventing abortions up to delivery. But those are the whackjobs on either side.

So when is that point?

Sarah says: Please provide credible evidence, accepted by the vast majority of the medical and scientific community of when HUMAN LIFE (I.E. HUMANITY) begins.

OK...fair question. Life (humanity)begins at conception...when the egg and sperm join. You see, there is something called the Law of Biogenesis (see Pasteur, I believe). He proved that living things can ONLY come from OTHER living things. Seeing the sperm and egg are alive (contain human DNA) it only stands to reason that the product of that IS a living being. Pretty simple actually.

So...no matter the size of the living being...it is STILL a human since it will become a human. Does that suffice? Personally, it sounds like you are quite angry in your response. I'm not sure why. Maybe you already know the truth about when life starts but possibly you don't want to face that dilemma. IDK...I could be wrong. Anyway, check my facts about Pasteur and the Law of Biogenesis. God Bless and good luck.

...and Sarah, I'd like to interject one other thing if I may. As a pregnant mother, your baby is not your "body". It is a separate body that has it's own functions and systems apart from yours...not even the same blood as you. So, in effect, the baby is borrowing your body (with your permission since you are the one who got pregnant and it had no choice in the matter) until it is able to survive without your help.

And please do not say that since the baby can't live without you that it proves it's part of your body. In fact, even AFTER your baby is born, it still needs you for everything...food, shelter, love....you get my meaning. It can't make it alone AFTER birth either.

You want a solution? Here you go. And dont complain because it isnt the PC answer you wanted to hear.

If you dont want to go get abortions or you want to keep the government out of your uterus, go get fixed. If you dont want kids but want all of the guilt free sex you can handle without the risk of pregnancy, then just get fixed. It solves all of your problems i.e. condoms suck, cant afford $9 a month for BC, etc.

The biggest problem that I foresee with this is that alot, not all, women will eventually change their minds. If that happens, please feel free to adopt a child that is in need of a loving family. There are too many kids in the foster system because of the piss poor choices that their mothers and fathers made.

While that rant was semi coherent, just take this away -

1. Women can sleep with whoever they want to, just beware the consequences of your actions. Because an abortion is not always going to be your right answer.

2. I think that women should be able to choose whatever they will with their bodies to include abortion. Rape babies, incest, and "true accidents", I believe, are legitimate reasons to have an abortion. Financial instability as well as "Im not ready" are bullcrap excuses. If you are ready for sex, then your ready to be a parent. Because, after all, that's what sex is for, right?

3. This story is about a man running for president and his religion. How we got to abortion and all that, not quite sure, but it makes for good debate. Basically, if you dont like the guy and you dont think he would make a good president based on his religion, then maybe you shouldnt be voting this November. That goes for all of the deep south racists that wont vote for Obama because he is "black" and a "muslim". That also goes for you liberals who think Mitt is a "mysoginist pig" and dislike him because of his religious convictions. Not one of us has the right to judge a man based on his religion, race or color of their skin. All men were created equal under God.

And as for Feisty, Starderup et all who talk about military service, try serving for a few years and see how easy it really is. And if you were wealthy and someone came by and said that your children had to go to BMT and go right off to war, you would do everything in your power to make sure that they didnt go, now wouldnt you? Not to say that its right, but Im 99.999% sure that is EXACTLY what you would do.

I should also mention that the aformentioned solution applies to men as well. I think men that dont want kids should do society a favor and go get fixed as well, because we dont want to deal with your bastard offspring either.

Judge Bill, um, yeah, I've seen tons of 'norman' missionaries who were tons of races. I've got a good buddy who's a mormon, and he's Tongan. (not from Africa, but pretty darn black.)

So...no matter the size of the living being...it is STILL a human since it will become a human. Does that suffice?

No, because your belief that it is sufficient doesn't constitute the majority of the scientific and medical community. You know, credible people.

Sarah I work in a lawfirm and I can assure medical and scientific folks are hardly credible. more often than not its the other way around.

"true accidents", I believe, are legitimate reasons to have an abortion. Financial instability as well as "Im not ready" are bullcrap excuses. If you are ready for sex, then your ready to be a parent.

Huh? Doesn't your last statement contradict your first statement?

go get fixed as well, because we dont want to deal with your bastard offspring either.

Agreed. But if you women would keep your panties in place there would be no need for birth control by either party.

I work in a lawfirm and I can assure medical and scientific folks are hardly credible.

Then surely you realize that lawyers should be added to the top of the list lacking credibility.

The "mission" Romney served was to find converts to the Mormon faith. Mormons believe they will achieve a higher level in the hierarchy of the afterlife if they can convince others to become Mormons.

You obviously know very little about the Mormon or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints faith.

Also we don't believe that converting more people somehow gives you more power in the afterlife. That is just absurd.

The "Thinker"

Seems as though somebody needs to get ahold of an old version of the book of mormon. There were very obvious and explicit references to the plight of blacks. When the church realized that they were about to take a hit in the supreme court regarding blacks they had "divine revelation" and their texts were rewritten. Simply rewriting a fantasy book is going to miraculously remove racism? Probably as effective as the Brown v. Board of Education ruling did.

You also don't know very much about the Mormon faith.

All I have been able to find of the web are a bunch of speculation, and a lot of people saying things out of context. (one who sparked a controversy on the Book of Mormon didn't even bother to actually read the book of Mormon)

Did Mitt, ever admit that black and whites can not procreate? Honestly, think about my question have ever seen a black mormon missionary riding a bicycle wearing a white shirt and tie with the book of norman ???

Why would he do so? I have read the official beliefs and official texts of the Mormons (and, no, the Journal of Discourses was not an official Mormon text, but was rather a private enterprise in England to earn stenographers some money). There is nothing in the official texts that would prevent it or speak directly against it. Some years back I did, however, once see an LDS manual that urged caution in interracial marriages to avoid divorce that comes to a lot of interracial marriages after a few years of marriage but it in no way said that it was not permitted.

And, sure, they can procreate. I personally know Mormons who have interracial marriages of Black and White, all of which have produced children.

Additionally, over the years I have with my own eyes seen several Blacks on bikes with their Book of Mormon and other texts. If you go to Africa you will see a whole lot more Black Mormons riding and walking around, too.

And, to that guy who above calls himself a "thinker," I own many religious texts of many religions around the world (Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.), including copies of the very first edition and other older editions of the Book of Mormon. Not one of them mentions anything about "the plight of Blacks" much less African-American and African Blacks at all.

If you are referring to the wording change in the Mormon text's 2 Nephi 30:6 (that is page 117 in the first edition) from white to pure, it was not racially motivated. It was more a desire to return to a reading that Joseph Smith himself put in there way back in 1840.

And, worse for your point of view, both white and pure are correct in that place. The claim of the Book of Mormon itself states that the original language was that of the Egyptians with the learning of the Jews. Well, in Egyptian words for white also mean pure and the same is also true of Hebrew and Aramaic. See the Book of Daniel in the King James Bible and compare it to the NIV to see the same transition from white to pure in places. "White" is more literal but "pure" is the connotation in various passages in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

Frankly, if you are going to talk about other peoples' religions, just tell the truth instead of rehashing lies about them. At least have the decency to do accurate research before spouting off. And, I would say--and have said--the same things to people who bang Islam and other religions.

Note: Those interested in seeing the 1840 edition for themselves in a facimile version online, go to the following link and turn to page 115 to see where the Mormons' leader Joseph Smith himself put the word "pure" there.

http://bookofmormononline.net/#/fax/1840

It is interesting that so many opinions are expressed about the sanctity of life, even when it in it's doubtful stages,but we liberals don't see as much concern expressed by people when the populations are stirred up by the information media against anyone that is perceived to be a threat to some inane part of our lifestyle . At times we are willing to destroy hundreds,thousands,even millions when some part of our lives are threatened. We kill in the name of Religion,Land, Colour of skin,Money, Politics the list can go on, but when some women decide for some Personal reason that they do not wish to continue to bring this birth to it's time then a certain faction in our society insist that they go back to the old ways and risk their lives to back-street abortionists instead of members of the medical profession. Our health is ,or should be, a normal part of our Social Welfare . The population on this planet is increasing to an alarming degree.In the future the countries will have to face the problem that China is already dealing with in a sensible way.

Why not just adopt the baby to a family who will want it rather than burning it with concentrated salt and sucking it out into a sink or bucket to die or using powertools on it? People who abort most often have something to hide or have some selfish reason not to have the baby. Don't want to get pregnant? Don't make babies. If you want to be responsible and limit your population or aren't ready for children, get yourselves sterilized. Many procedures of this kind are reversible should you change your mind later. Why make a fetus or an infant pay for your mistakes and immorality?

Actually what I noticed is that attorneys, at least most of them, look at the verbage used to create laws and use it to demonstrate the facts in a matter are or are not related to the legal matter being presented or incorrectly are applied in the case at hand. They are bound by laws of ethics to present the case as best they can with the information at hand for their client. Whether they like it or not once they accept a case they are pretty much stuck with it. Or they can choose to lose their license, livelyhood, job, and possibly everything they own. Just curious Thinker when is the last time you told your boss you weren't going to do something or quit because it was wrong. Because I have done it many times and in interviews I stated my concerns and why I left and still got the job.

What I'm talking about thinker is the amazing ability of medical professionals to perform procedures and induce sickness that was not related to the original problem in any way. If I have surgery for a broken hip I shouldn't die of pnuemonia. In theory that shouldn't happen.

According to many scientists and doctors, many well respected, the following ideas were presented.

Smoking doesn't cause cancer.

There is no global warming.

People are born gay.

Aspirin a day is good for men over 40.

Asbestos does a body good.

So if your statement below were true the lawyers would likely be more credible than the doctors and scientists by far. Why is it that so many drugs are removed from sale after FDA and science makes them available? Because the lawyers find, demonstrate, and hold those accountable for their untruths using facts and examples.

Then surely you realize that lawyers should be added to the top of the list lacking credibility.

So cool! And so real!

Hey ForePlinger, I saw that Burma Shave roadsign when I was a kid! Awesome!

That Dallas pastor also said he would vote for Romney over Obama.

Ricky's Plan nearly as bad as Mitty's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSRSHUGOOn4

Very interesting read about Mormons at www.deism.com. This belief for many of the country's founders has a former Mormom discussing his experiences.

I really see Romney as a Deist believer!

Farm Girl- It's spelled Mormon not Morman.There goes any credibility you might have tried to instill in being a know it all. Name the Mormon town you grew up in? I wonder if there are Catholic towns, Baptists towns, Methodist towns, Seventh day Adventist towns, Luthern towns, Jewish towns, Amish towns, and Muslim towns out where you live now? You clearly don't remember "their" beliefs do you, as "lineage" was the subject not "color of skin" ? Ask Glaydys Knight, Thurl Bailey and hundreds of thousands other black members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints world-wide today about this subject you seem to know all about- NOT! Please remember the Lord gave his Priesthood to only one tribe of the House of Israel- Tribe of Levi- I wonder how all of the other tribes felt about HIM doing that? What would you say to those other tribes Farm Girl? The Lord was predjudice? He didn't know what he was doing? Please FG explain to us how you would tell the remaining Tribes of Israel why they weren't given the Priesthood.

According to the GOP, they were all slackers. Therefore, unworthy by Cant-nors standards!

@ Farm Girl Most people thank goodness have changed their beliefs since the 60's. It is called progress not living in the past like you seem to be doing.

Farm girl, have you check out the ideology of other Christian churches? Not only do (some) Moromons hide behind reglion as a basis for racism, but many people of Judeo-Christian sects. Sadly, this belief is predominant in the "Christian" churches of our own White South. Racial hatred pops out of Southern Republican mouths every time one of them gets opportunity to speak, including the "good God-fearin' Church leaders". Racial tensions are higher during economic hard-times. We have therefore seen more of this undercurrent rise to the surface in the last 4 years. Why do you think there is so much blind, pointless opposition to Obama from the South? Not opposition based on facts, that matter but opposition based on the fact he is Black. The "birthers" have nothing to base their argument on either, but have people on their sad little bandwagon because our President is Black.

Republicans change their beliefs regularly. It is required in order to "connect" with the loonies at the base. Republicans who are rational and actually tell the truth about what they believe can't win elections - Huntsman is the perfect example. I would not have voted for him, but he is an honest and intelligent man with great insights, and I agreed with him on several points. But unfortunately for the Republican party, no one passes the "purity test".

In any case and more to the point of the article, in our Democracy religion should not be a factor in electing our representatives at any level, including president. We are a nation of religious tolerance, but Republicans at the moment can only tolerate their own brand of strict so-called "Christianity". I will not vote for Romney as I disagree with his political ideology, but his religion is of no concern to me. I look forward to the day when a candidate can safely say that his/her religion is simply no one else's business.

I guess Jackson's hole doesn't know Gladys Knight as well as we thought, if The Spelling Police are out; I hope the thought police will be protected from reading my mind, by my Aluminum Foil Hat!!!

<____>

The Mormon church has no holdings in Coca-Cola.

Source: www.snopes.com/cokelore/mormon.asp

More history on the Mormon church's beliefs to race can be found in their newsroom here:

www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church

@FarmGirl - I to am familiar with those small "Morman" towns where they own the local politics. I also remembered being educated on the 'lesser' races, particularly blacks, whose sin was carrying the mark of Cain. Odd, after more than a decade after the civil rights movement (and lots of grumbling) the Church elders had a 'vision' and walla, blacks were allowed a higher degree of participation in the Church. Wonder if they were afraid of losing that religious exception? Wonder how they are doing with that shock therapy for gays. Perhaps they can let Marcus in on that secret, something Bachmann can add to his 'pray the gay away' goodie bag. And finally, the role of women in the Mormon Church .. their place is in the home having kids.

Mormons want to have many of their on in our political power also have control of our economy as well, their dream is the White House, they will twist every word of their book but never will renounce their true sectarian believe, watch Romney answers about religion…. how any african-american, hispanic or not pure european descendant can accept the Mormon church (to me sect) is beyond my understanding they treat their women and children as possessions that is why I am voting for Obama… like many that can not even think a KKK mentality candidate can be our president. OBAMA- 2012

Humbird- You didn't answer my question about the tribes if Israel and how you would handle the situation, nor the MormAn town you were raised in? Not a key-stroke error when it is done more than once and many others are doing the same thing, so it's just not you who didn't know.

Or more to point the point, the head of the church had a vision, and it was bad, the Feds were going to tax them back to planet Koleb (sp). Then and only then did they have a change of heart. Now blacks are permitted to serve in the church. At lower levels..

I would like to sincerely thank FarmGirl, JDills, RedDevPS, and lilli.

It is so wonderful of you to parade liberal democrats' religious into,erance before the electorate.

With friends like you, Obama does not need enemies!

Please, keep posting!

hispanic or not pure european descendant can accept the Mormon church (to me sect) is beyond my understanding they treat their women and children as possessions that is why I am voting for Obama

How do we treat Our spouse and children? I have never hit My children are you saying that is wrong? I have never hit my wife are you saying I should? I treat my wife a an equal partner as it taught in our church are you saying I'm wrong for that?

?????

@RedDevPS - I am familiar with your argument that a Mormon "revelation" happens at a very "convenient" time. However, I feel as though you trying too hard to create hatred where none is due. I can think of too many times in THE BIBLE where God gives his prophets revelation that are very much appropriate for the time and era that are occuring. One specific instance is when Peter recieves a vision of "unclean" food that he refuses to eat. The Lord then chastises him for calling something unclean which he has now deemed clean. As you may or may not know, this vision is a representation of the Gospel of Christ being brought to the gentiles. This was not a popular movement I can assure you. Now, back to the Mormon's... They claim to have a prophet which recieves revelation from God. Is it wrong to have a prophet that recieves revelation or is it wrong to have a religion that believes differently than you do? If it is wrong to believe in revelation from God from a prophet, then the whole argument of religion is of no consequence at all because then all Christian religions are a farce and cannot be believed. Their whole foundation should be based on the fact that the Bible states that there were prophets who recieved the word of God. Now if it is wrong that others share different religious views from you and I, then let's face the facts: The Constitution must be thrown out. This country was founded on freedoms that could not be recieved in any other location in the world, and yes, that includes religion. So which is it then? Do we discard all Christian religions as being a farce or do we discard the Constitution? Either way I feel as though you are only seeking to destroy something good that has provided much good to the world and to the people of the world. I am going to assume that because this conversation has progressed far beyond this post you won't have an opportunity to read this, but maybe someone will and will see that religion should never be a factor in whom we elect and should not be an attacking point. I feel that anyone who attacks the Mormon faith does so because of their own insecurities. Yes people are bad and there are bad Mormons, I've met some of them. There are also things which have been said and written which have been out of line with the society in which we live. My experience with Latter-day Saints has been that the majority of them are kind and full of love. Recently a survey was taken of the most optimistic people in America. I don't think it was a coincidence that the most optimistic people are found in the Mormon state of Utah (). Yes, they may be a little naive, but they are hopeful. Which is more than I can say about the majority of posters in political columns.

Women have ONE purpose in the church and family.... BROOD MARE. Period. So glad I got the hell out while the getting was good.

Women have ONE purpose in the church and family.... BROOD MARE

NO you are so wrong. Women tend to have better quality's in some areas then men do and visa verse. I have two children. I'm from a family of two My wife is from a family of two. My father is an only child and my mother has only a brother. How is this a "BroodMARE"?

?????

How do we treat them as property? is it because we care for them?

If you honestly want the truth to be know you may want to check out lds.org.

All your questions will be answered. Also, you may want to read the Book of Mormon if you honestly want the facts, I challenge all of you who think Mormon's are a cult to read the book. It is very simply another testament of Jesus Christ the son of the living God.

Well, FARMGIRL, I grew up in the 50s and 60s, too...in the Baptist church. Not only did they have nothing to do with people of color, they also had nothing to do with Catholics. The pastor of the church where my father was a deacon and I had attended for 20 years would not attend my wedding because it was in a Catholic church and they worshiped the "idols"...the statues.

Also, I remember a woman who came to our church when I was a teenager. She was pentecostal...She stood up on the pew and started speaking in tongues at one service. She was asked to find another church.

And, I remember it was against the rules for a Catholic to attend services at another denomination...my Catholic cousins couldn't come to church with me.

So, get over it...we are past the 1960's. I have to believe the Mormans, like the Catholics, Baptists, Episcopals (and don't get me started on them), the Methodists and all the rest have had some changes through the years.

It is so wonderful of you to parade liberal democrats' religious into,erance before the electorate.

Well, assuming you meant intolerance, there is no tolerance from the republicans for an agnostic or atheist view. When you look at this article, the one that started the crap shoot is Romney telling us how he is the every-man-man because he pandered to his religious base and somehow that translates to understanding the common man. What you completely fail to see is the minute conservatives pipe down their religious preaching, the pressure eases up on the other side. The minute we have the Santrom's and Romney's start preaching from the pulpit, dirt gets kicked up in their face. Now spit, sit, and think about it .. your party introduced the litmus test. Your party kicks and screams like babies when it is thrown back in your face. You represent intolerance.

TexasGram - me thinks what FarmGirl points out is we are not past the 1960s. The conservative base still throws this in our face at every curve in the road. How else do you explain the belief that Obama is a Muslim and that somehow it matters.

Also, you may want to read the Book of Mormon if you honestly want the facts, I challenge all of you who think Mormon's are a cult to read the book. It is very simply another testament of Jesus Christ the son of the living God.

LOL The 'go to' challenge.

Been there. Done that. STILL no burning of the bosom.

I've even been to the Mormon Miracle Pageant - it didn't move me, it scared me! (and not in a good old fashioned 'Fear of God' way LOL... it was a 'people really believe this?!?' type of way)

Just because something is advertised as 'just another testament of Jesus Christ' does not mean that it is an accurate testament... or that it even applies to the same 'Jesus Christ' that one would find in the Bible or among other denominations of mainstream Christianity.

Simply put, the LDS faith has exploited it's supposed ties to Christianity... and that's really pretty lame.

I would have a lot more respect for the LDS faith if the powers that be would have seen fit to just be honest about the Church's position on those things, from the very start - 'Hey folks, THIS is what we believe. We take ownership in what we believe. We are proud of what we believe. We are not going to pretend that what we believe is something that it's not.'

I could have respected that. I can not respect it, as it is.

And, anyone who doesn't think there are such things as "Mormon towns" has never been to Manti. LOL

And, anyone who doesn't think there are such things as "Mormon towns" has never been to Manti.

Ah, Manti town - as in the praying insect town. The only place where pageantry is larger than life than on the backside of Oahu. Only Mecca and the Vatican can parlay such zealitigotry, if only it were a word.

I want to know if he told anyone about a friend of mine who's wife and children were taken away and after the "church" obtained a divorce for here they married her off to another man because my friend found out the "church" is a lie.

Did he tell anyone about the death oath they have to take when they join the "church"? Did he tell anyone that they believe Jesus (the only begotten son of God) and Satan are brothers? Did he tell anyone that they believe the only way for a woman to get to heaven is if she is allowed in by her husband. Jesus says "I am the way the truth and the life, no man (human) comes to the Father but by me"

The church is a cult, Did he say that? NO I doubt it.

We are talking about the 60s right. A time of segregation and racism? I am sure your experiences has to do more with society than religion.

I know a LOT of LDS members.  Do any of you know that it is against their religion to speak ill of any other religion.  All you people that claim to know so much about them, did you know that one of their most important rules is to " allow all men to worship how, where and what they may".  They actually live their religion (except Harry Reid).  Maybe we should take a lesson from these horrible cult conspirators and do the same....let them worship how, where and what they may.  No other religion donates more to the poor in volunteer service and monetary contribution.....ask the victims of Katrina......or Haiti.....or Pakistan......or Kosovo.......Mozambique.......Japan......check it out.  While we all trash a religion we all know very little about, they are out serving their fellow man.  Name another religion where the clergy receives no pay for their service......all volunteer, so that every cent of donations to help the needy actually goes to the needy.  No passing the plate so the pastor's kids can go to college.  The Bible frowns on payment for building the kingdom of God.  Nothing is so foolish as the pseudo-intellect that claims knowledge they do not have.  "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt".

While we all trash a religion we all know very little about...

What do they say happens when we assume? Ah, yes... now I remember.

You don't know how much I know about the LDS faith, or how I know it.

Personally, I've never met anyone who's been to Manti as a 'pleasure only' sort of trip. ;o)

No passing the plate so the pastor's kids can go to college.

There are MYRIAD problems with your little rant, but this one really got me. There are other ways to 'pass the plate', as it were.

I'd rather a church pass a plate, and allow me to decide whether to obey the Bible's teachings about tithing... than attend a yearly settlment meeting where someone can take away my Temple Recommend, if I haven't been giving my 10%.

I think debating Romney's religion has no real basis, I have a Mormon friend and I think he is a great person with a strong commitment to friends and family, that alone is important and that has to do with upbringing I'm a Democrat and if We did have a Republican President Romney would be my choice, I know I'm going to be burnt at the stake for that comment but really at least he is sane .....

Ah, Manti town - as in the praying insect town. The only place where pageantry is larger than life than on the backside of Oahu. Only Mecca and the Vatican can parlay such zealitigotry, if only it were a word.

Yeah, the town where --even when you are not, technically, AT the pageant-- you are still treated to the pageant. The trees have speakers and the hills have eyes.

I want to know if he told anyone about a friend of mine who's wife and children were taken away and after the "church" obtained a divorce for here they married her off to another man because my friend found out the "church" is a lie.

Sorry but Your thinking of the FLDS or one of the other denominations You do know there are over 200 brake offs of the LDS church and they are all called Mormon?

Hey, I grew up in the little town of Rexburg Idaho, which has a higher percentage of Mormons than Salt Lake City! Grew up in the Church, eventually figured out how totally bogus it was and left.

The "race issue" was an absurd doctrine from the founder, Joseph Smith, that held that sinfulness of a people was reflected in the color of their skin, and he even wrote in his "Book of Mormon" that a wicked peoples skin turns dark, and the righteous people grew "fair and delightsome". For over a century anyone with "even a drop of African blood" was denied the priesthood, the excuse given is that they were not righteous enough in the "pre-life". But after the civil rights movement, and efforts to expand the church in South America were stymied by a rather high percentage of the population with some African ancestry, they had a revelation of convenience to allow all races into their priesthood - as long as they were men... I must point out, however, since Mormons don't have paid clergy and their "priesthood" are all lay members, being excluded from the priesthood wasn't much of a burden.

I want to know if he told anyone about a friend of mine who's wife and children were taken away and after the "church" obtained a divorce for here they married her off to another man because my friend found out the "church" is a lie.

A dubious story. More likely that "friend" simply had a squabble with his wife and got a divorce, and the wife remarried. The same thing happens to thousands of couples in all religions, nothing new there. The Church doesn't have the power or authority to "take away" anyones wife, and cannot force anyone to get a divorce.

Did he tell anyone about the death oath they have to take when they join the "church"?

Totally bogus, no "death oath" required upon joining. People can and do leave the Church if they wish, as I did, and though the church leaders are not happy about anyone leaving, there are no threats or retributions for doing so.

Did he tell anyone that they believe Jesus (the only begotten son of God) and Satan are brothers?

Well, yes! They believe that everyone was created by God, that we're all sons and daughters of God, and that includes both Jesus and Satan, and that would make them brothers. Just goes to show that every family has its "black sheep". Remember that the Bible says that God made all things good and evil, so as strange as it sounds, that notion is not in conflict with the Bible.

Did he tell anyone that they believe the only way for a woman to get to heaven is if she is allowed in by her husband.

Nope, never was Mormon doctrine. Mormons do believe that there are divisions in Heaven, with the highest level reserved for faithful members, but it has levels for good people who are non-Mormons, too. Mormons also believe that everyone will have an opportunity to hear the Gospel and join, if not in this life then in the after-life. That's the reasoning behind their genealogy work and the silly practice of "baptisms for the dead" - as if Almighty God couldn't make a baptismal font in heaven!

There you have it - a mostly harmless religion with an embarrassing past and more than a few eccentricities. Just like most other Christian religions out there.

QUOTE :"

bicfj

Mormonism is corporate.

Mormon beliefs are opportunistic.

Mormonism is male dominated. Women are sub sub everything.

Mormonism will do whatever it takes to accomplish the latest dictate from their top leaders.

Mormonism would repeat the Mountain Meadows Slaughter to make a point even today."

You forgot, Mormons will EQUIVOCATE at every opportunity,

the whole truth & nothing but the truth is reserved for Elders ears .

A person who dances around the truth is commonly called a Weasel, if the shoe fits...... it's a Duck !

DB Akron

Ruken - ... I suggest you actually get to know a Mormon on a daily basis, read some of their writings, and have them explain exactly what they understand about their own writings. I don't mean 10 minutes, an hour or a few days. Interact with them for several months and then make a decision about them.

NIce lecture, DB. And what's YOUR experience with Mormons? I have 6 direct prolonged interfaces with people in that religion... I walked away shaking my head in each and every one of them.

One was seriously dating a friend of ours. He would not divorce his wife or even introduce our friend to his hometown or family because he would be shunned. Apparently it's okay to do the deed while putting up the front with the church. He dropped his girlfriend after she would not tolerate the situation, and then promptly went back to Internet dating... WITHOUT mentioning his faith.

My brother and his family converted to Mormonism while living in Georgia. They also got heavily involved in helping needy families a practiced and believed in "inclusion" and "empathy" for others. The church members hounded them about their views and found it unacceptable that they supported Obama in the last election. The church turned absolutely exclusionary and basically told my brother's family that their views were unacceptable. They left the church after bitter and very public debates about their voting and inclusive habits... was it Georgia or the Mormons or both? Who knows, but it was VERY ugly.

Another friend of mine was struggling with his bills, including his mortgage payment... long story short is that we could never agree with his (and the church's) conviction that the obligation to give the church 10% of his income came before providing shelter for his family. Who knows if he would have kept his house had he not been Mormon, but I did not see any "empathy" coming from the church in this case. They were fine with his plight as long as they got their 10%.

So... MY experience, after "getting to know" people in the Mormon church, is that the people are generally okay... but that the church is overbearing, controlling, hypocritical, invasive, exclusionary, self-centered, and extremely political. But hey, that's just my experience.

LMarcT, I lived in SLC from 1966 to 1968, and that was the most uptight, regressive society I have ever seen. They are heavily into recruiting new revenue sources. It is a money making organization, plain and simple. They will not tell you about Kolob, the magic underwear or the multi-tiered heaven up front, because coming across as insane didn't seem to work well. Instead, they try to pretend they are just another flavor of Christianity. However, this religion, dreamed up in the late 1800s by Joseph Smith, has lots of cool new stuff. Like, they think Jesus came over here to the U.S. That's right! We are the holy land, too!!! If you get to the super high level of heaven, you become like God, who once was a man like you and me. You get your own planet. You get to populate it via a bunch of virgins that fly around it like you. I think you can blast people into oblivion if they get out of line. Anyway, all this was documented on copper plates that Joe found, and he transcribed them onto paper, but an angel came down and told him the book was overdue back at the cosmic library, so that's why the original is not available. Seriously, this nutjob was on some kind of drugs when he wrote this crap. You should read a little of it. Open up the Book of Mormon to any page. Chances are, the first thing you will see is "Wherefore it came to pass". Mark Twain said that if you took that phrase out, it would be a pamphlet. Evidently, Joe thought it sounded real religious, so he used it all over the place.

I remember leaving SLC to go back to California. That was one of the happiest days of my life, leaving that sorry, closed, bigoted bunch of fruitcakes.

The posts here are full of lies about Mormons and I am extremely grateful for the day of judgment when finally after all is said and done, those who have spent their time trashing their fellow man will finally face their Maker. Whether the LDS faith is true or not is up to each individual to decide for themselves, but to those who hold scripture as the source of all truth, may I remind you of the injunction by the Savior Himself to love your neighbor as yourself. Your conversations on this site show that your condemnation of Mr. Romney reveal you, yourselves to be full of sin according to the Savior.

The church members hounded them about their views and found it unacceptable that they supported Obama in the last election.

LOL My Hole family But me Voted for Obama ans Support him. THey are all democrat save for my dad who is republican and Voted for Obama.

One was seriously dating a friend of ours. He would not divorce his wife or even introduce our friend to his hometown or family because he would be shunned. Apparently it's okay to do the deed while putting up the front with the church.

NO what he did was not ok with things it very much was not ok.

Who knows if he would have kept his house had he not been Mormon, but I did not see any "empathy" coming from the church in this case. They were fine with his plight as long as they got their 10%.

That is interesting When My mother was in five car accidents in 4 years she almost could not work that hole time and we received help from the church Food and they helped us with our bills. We also sold a lot of things and went bankrupt but the church was able to help us for three years that we really needed it. and yes my parents were not the most active and we did what we could to be self sufficient we lived off of our years supply for two years to help us through the time.

They will not tell you about Kolob,

Why it is not important.

the magic underwear

The Garment is not Magic. And they learn about it latter it is not with held if they ask we talk about it.

the multi-tiered heaven up front,

We talk about that in the plan of salvation discussion.

We are the holy land, too!!!

It is one of the Holy lands.

If you get to the super high level of heaven, you become like God, who once was a man like you and me. You get your own planet. You get to populate it via a bunch of virgins that fly around it like you.

IT is called eternal progression GOD will always be our God and He will aways be above us. We one day if we are worthy reach that point however we don't know when it could be 10 trillion years from now.

I think you can blast people into oblivion if they get out of line.

Well God has done that many of times. HE was in the right because he is perfect when we one day reach his level we would be worthy to not violate the commandments and rules. Yes even GOD fallowed Rules.

I remember leaving SLC to go back to California.

There are more mormons in California then in Utah.

You can't change the history books, but you can learn from them and change your ways.

There are many black Muslims also, but in the Quran it says that if the black pagan doesn't turn to Islam, they should be hunted down and killed. Where did the slaves come from that were sent to the new world and old? They were captured by the northern Arabs that were subjecting the pagan blacks to what the Arabs thought they were worth at the time - subhuman slaves.

When the movie Roots came out, there was a documentary on PBS that showed there were still black slaves being taken by Arabs in Africa and being sold into slavery. Mankind has always had the propensity to subjugate those they felt were not in their same class. Thank God, all races of Mankind has bettered themselves since. However, there is still work to do. No matter what the Book of Mormon says, the church has changed for the better. Maybe we all should look at ourselves to see how we can become a better person.

Nice to see all of you bashing each others beliefs about religion. Bottom line...Religion has NO PLACE in politics.

I have a copy of the 13 tenets of Joseph Smith it doesn't mention race at all. #11 does say they claim the priveledge of worshipping the Almighty Father according to their conscience and allow all men to worship how they wish and what they wish. As a Catholic I can live with that in a presidential candidate. Nice of my Milwaukee Catholic HS to teach me not to fear learning enough about other religions so that I can understand them.

You want insight into the Mormon faith?

Watch that episode of South Park. Describes it very well.

You must be a liberal. You get your religious education from South Park and your news from the Daily Show. No wonder you are so well informed....not

It is sad to see Americans who are such bigots! Where is your religious tolerance? Or do you just believe that others should tolerate your beliefs but not get the same respect and courtesy as you?

I am not a Mormon but I have known many and know the people and their ways and beliefs. I lived in Utah for a while. They are some of the most honest people I have ever met. Did you know the FBI recruits heavily from Brigham Young University because they know these are patriots that they can trust?

If you truly want to know about Mormons get to know one personally. That person will very likely end up being one of your most trusted friends. I grew up in the South in traditional Baptist fashion but even before I knew any Mormons or any of their beliefs I never vilified them simply because they worshiped in a different church. I found that most of the things I thought I knew about them prior to actually meeting real live Mormons were exagerated untruths promulgated by certain other sects.

The main issue is that religion is not running for the presidency. A man is running for the presidency who happens to be the most qualified to reverse the disasterous course President Obama has placed this nation on.

Mormons want to have many of their on in our political power also have control of our economy as well, their dream is the White House, they will twist every word of their book but never will renounce their true sectarian believe, watch Romney answers about religion…. how any african-american, hispanic or not pure european descendant can accept the Mormon church (to me sect) is beyond my understanding they treat their women and children as possessions

Can you at least do a little bit of research before you post such horrible lies?

There are so many things wrong with your statement that I don't even know where to start.

First of all we DON'T believe that whites are inferior, and I DON'T know of any Mormon who does.

The Book of Mormon often referred to certain sects of Lamanites (a group of people of darker skin) as being more righteous than any part of the Nephites (who were white skinned) and even the last person said that the Nephites were more wicked than the Lamanites even though the Lamanites had completely destroyed all of the Nephites.

Also I don't know of any Mormon that treats their wives or children as property. We are taught that men should honor women and that a husband and a wife are equal in marriage.

And even our church leaders teach us that saying "I have the Priesthood therefore you should listen to me" is a wrong, immoral, and intolerable statement.

Mormonism is male dominated. Women are sub sub everything.

Wrong!!! Women are an integral part of the Mormon religion. Men who have the Priesthood are taught to honor and respect women, and are taught that by exercising unjust authority (such as having the "I am a man, you are a woman therefore I am right" complex) you are giving up your right to the Priesthood and its authority.

Mormonism will do whatever it takes to accomplish the latest dictate from their top leaders.

Harry Reid is on of the most powerful man in Washington, and guess what he is a Mormon. Did you hear of a church mandate to support him?

Mormonism would repeat the Mountain Meadows Slaughter to make a point even today."

I almost couldn't keep my lunch in when I heard this statement, I will just assume that you are not an idiot and are just exaggerating to make a point. (however wrong that point may be)

My brother and his family converted to Mormonism while living in Georgia. They also got heavily involved in helping needy families a practiced and believed in "inclusion" and "empathy" for others. The church members hounded them about their views and found it unacceptable that they supported Obama in the last election. The church turned absolutely exclusionary and basically told my brother's family that their views were unacceptable. They left the church after bitter and very public debates about their voting and inclusive habits... was it Georgia or the Mormons or both? Who knows, but it was VERY ugly.

I pray for your brother and condemn the actions of the other Mormons who ridiculed him for his political beliefs.

I know many people who voted for Obama who are of the Mormon faith. And I don't hate them or consider them to be "evil" (yes there are those lunatics who think, incorrectly, that their political beliefs are doctrine, but spiritually speaking they are not representatives of the church)

Another friend of mine was struggling with his bills, including his mortgage payment... long story short is that we could never agree with his (and the church's) conviction that the obligation to give the church 10% of his income came before providing shelter for his family. Who knows if he would have kept his house had he not been Mormon, but I did not see any "empathy" coming from the church in this case. They were fine with his plight as long as they got their 10%.

The church has a very good welfare program for its members. Most of that welfare money goes to helping people in need, such as paying for food, mortgage, and other necessities.

The church does not let their members go homeless to pay their 10% tithing.

One was seriously dating a friend of ours. He would not divorce his wife or even introduce our friend to his hometown or family because he would be shunned. Apparently it's okay to do the deed while putting up the front with the church. He dropped his girlfriend after she would not tolerate the situation, and then promptly went back to Internet dating... WITHOUT mentioning his faith.

That man is obviously not the model of a good Mormon, one we are taught not to cheat on our spouses.

Cassandra-854239

Has anyone asked him what would happen to someone who had breast cancer AND MS without being able to afford the astronomical medical expenses?

let alone not being able to get health insurance due to preexisting conditions? It's a death sentence for most.

I would love to see his answer to Cassandra's question about affording treatment for someone who had breast cancer and MS and would not be able to afford the astronomical medical expenses. Guess what, we have insurance and for my husband, whose leukemia returned, we just got a statement from the hospital (and it doesn't even cover the individual doctor's bills), for 33 days in the hospital undergoing chemo, the statement is for $151,380.03. God only knows how much our insurance is going to pay on this and he is going to have to undergo a 2nd 'consolidation' chemo and then a bone-marrow transplant if he wants to live. When I opened that envelope, I almost thought I was going to have a heart attack and gasped for air. I couldn't believe it. Maybe I should have dropped dead, it would have been cheaper than to have had that heart attack and be taken to the hospital.

Oh, somehow, I see bankruptcy looming in our future because we don't have the millions of dollars of 'investments' that someone like Mitt has. Or, maybe my husband should have just declined treatment and we would be preparing for him to die - because that would have been cheaper. How much is a human life worth? Oh, I get it, if it's a rich, Republican politician (or any politician), their lives are more important and their government (taxpayer) provided healthcare takes care of everything 100%. Lucky dogs - the rest of us - we're just the dogs**t on the ground in this country.

Mary-793387

I am sorry to hear about your troubles. Unfortunately, your story is one of many. These idiots look at us in term of a profit margin. And that is sad.I can almost understand those who make their millions based on denying coverages - to them we are faceless numbers. But I will never understand those -- who are like us -- but continue to vote for those who will continuously make decisions that will only benefit the 1%.

I hope all turns out well for you.

@Mary-793387

Put the statements and bills aside for now--it takes hospitals, and the medical industry as a whole, several (3 or more) billing cycles to tweak and adjust the amount due. You have more important things to do with your time and energy. Thank God the Affordable Care Act is eliminating lifetime caps as well as preexisting conditions. The insurance company dictated patient care for way too long and now some members of the GOP would like to do the same.

Mary ---{{hugs}} to you and your husband as you face these challenges. Thank goodness you have insurance.

I don't see how Mitt Romney can understand the plight of people who have health issues. You must worry about changing jobs and portability issues. For Mitt, your husband's bill would have been 3 days' income--not a big deal to him but devastating to anyone else.

watch Jay leno he was on there your question was answerd. He Wants everyone to have Health Care BUT ON A STATE LEVEL not forced upon you. not Government controled. My wife is sick We have no inurance and cant afford it Thank you O for now take away the last of our money to force it on us. I am a Business owner. O wants to put a 40% tax on my business 40% what a jack@ss. he is costing thousands a year and you still want him in office. YOU ARE ALL BLIND!!!! Who has your living been the last 3 years, Dont LIE to yourself? And DONT BLAME BUSH that time is over, oh and Bush was a Jack@ss too.

@Sirboss, You aren't making sense.

He Wants everyone to have Health Care BUT ON A STATE LEVEL not forced upon you. not Government controled.

If the State forces you to buy insurance, it is both forced and Government controlled. I have to admit, this is the first time I have heard about a 40% O tax. Since there isn't anything in the healthcare act or on the internet on that tax, do you have any links to share?

@Sir - Do you know that you are entitled to subsidized health insurance for your wife? I suggest that you look into it for the welfare of your wife. How is the new health care act preventing you from getting needed insurance for your wife? Maybe the problem you're ranting about is your lack of understanding concerning the new health care laws, most of which haven't taken place! Millions of people are now eligible to get health care that were not eligible before this new piece of legislation. My wife has some very rare health conditions that allowed Insurance companies to deny her coverage, but not anymore. Although things aren't perfect, I am personally grateful that my wife can no longer be denied health insurance coverage. Some of the things that need to change however, is the monthly premium costs, but with time I am hopeful they too will come down.

Mitt Romney may not have health insurance. People who make such a large amount of money do better by investing that money into the markets and then paying cash for all health care. Discounts for paying cash runs upwards of 35% discount. Sounds like a big discount but it is not. When you get your bill form a doctor or a hospital actually read it you will find that the Insurance and co-pay combined is anywhere from 25% to 75% of the actual billed amount. I.E. People who can afford to pay cash already pay a premium for the services - which you actually benefit from by paying less for with insurance.

What do you do with people that don't get health insurance and then when they think they have something wrong the get insurance? Should an insurance company that is for profit be forced to cover someone that wants to get covered when it is convenient? IT is like getting car insurance just after an accident.

First of all there should be no such thing as FOR PROFIT healthcare. PERIOD. What a sick, disgusting industry run by a bunch of sick, disgusting, greedy capitalists. Healthcare should NOT be a capitalist endeavor. If there is one instance where SOCIALISM should prevail... THIS would be it.

Same for food, right?

And shelter- what about shelter? How dare people make profits on such necessities!

And clothing- what a basic need! How dare they!

You see where this is going, right? If you have a house, carpenters, plumbers, and painter have no right to make a profit.

Underwear, outerwear, and -ahem- "personal products" should, likewise, be not for profit.

That leads us to food- without it, you're dead.

Well, not immediately. Takes a couple weeks.

Fish. In. Barrels.

Sirboss, don't hurt yourself, you do not want both you and your wife to be sick at the same time. I am sure there is something in the healthcare plan that can help your wife in her illness. Just do a little research. I wish her a speedy recovery and pray that the cost is not too high. By the time the bill is fully enacted it will be much better for you both.

Me thinks...because of his statements....that No Joe guy is a CEO of a health insurance company....!

As long as we have a free society, there are always going to be people who can afford more than others. It doesn't matter whether it is a vacation, a birthday party, a house, a car or health care. The more money you have, the more you can afford.

I don't want to live in a society where everyone is the same...where no one has an incentive or an opportunity to better themselves.

My parents were both raised by tenant farmers...that's what poor folks became when slavery was abolished. And, they bettered themselves and taught me and my brother to strive to better ourselves. That's what America is.

Me thinks...because of his statements....that No Joe guy is a CEO of a health insurance company....!

Uh .. Leona Helmsley comes more to mind .. of the mind set that the only way to make the almighty buck is to suck it off everyone else. This one thinks that capitalism was invented for 'her' to make a million at the expense of everyone else. You see, when we all contribute to pave a road, this one thinks 'it' has ownership to drive on it and everyone else should pay a toll to walk it. That is one disgusting mind set, eh?

I wonder how many people know that Mormons believe that Men in good standing with their church and in the "Celestial Kingdom," a exclusive part of heaven for only Latter Day Saints most worthy, will become Gods themselves and will rule over their own worlds and universes? It's true! I wonder how many Americans would be comfortable with a man who believes this about himself being the most powerful man in the world, the leader of the greatest country in the world, the leader of the most powerful military in the world?

Is it a good idea to elect someone President of the United States of America, who believes that they are on their way to becoming Deity themselves, creators and destroyers of their own universes? How would a person who believes this be with lowly issues beneath them? How comfortable would the world be with a man who will become God hovering his finger over "The Red Button?" Unless you live in a predominantly populated Mormon area, and maybe not even then, it is likely that you know very little about The Church of "Jesus Christ" of Latter Day Saints. So many of us focus on things like the past polygamy, the non consumption of alcohol, etc. that we do not realize that there are so many other dangerous and strange beliefs and practices about this church. They are not Christians, they believe in a completely different God and Jesus than the rest of Christianity, and their belief in their being "the only true church," leaves NO room for tolerance of other Christian religions, Judaism, Islam, Atheism, Buddhism, etc. The possibility of this Modern Day living Saint, Man/God becoming the President of the United States of America suggests that much more thought and research is needed before such an important decision is made.

I dunno Bronx guy .. I was actually thrilled for a while that I would end up with my own little solar system with an earth type planet, and I could be Yahweh. Then I read just a bit more and realized Jehovah was a Jew, Christ was a Jew, and gasp, Yahweh was a Mormon?

Same for food, right?

That's right Jo - hoard it, shelve it, and don't share a bit of it. We know your kind, all for piggy. By the way, I attended a great dinner party last week, didn't have to spend a dime, the food was provided by the host. We had a great time. I will be returning the favor - out of your league.

Bronx guy, I'm a mormon and I'm not weird. I also believe in the same God that you believe in and the same God that all christians believe in. Our beliefs may sound strange when taken out of context, but think about it, have you ever really asked a mormon why we believe what we do? Instead of just assuming that we're power hungry-god wannabies?. We believe in a heavenly father that loves us and want's us to become the best we can because we are his children. That is why we have been born here on this earth; not to just waste our days away doing whatever, we're here to gain experience and become more like our heavenly father. The same Jesus Christ that you believe in came down and lead the perfect example. He lived a perfect life and therefore became like God the father. If Christ came down to be an example for us, is it not logical to understand that we can become perfect as well by following Christ's example and become just like our heavenly father? It's all in the bible, the same bible that all christians use.

Come on awesome .. if you truly believed what you typed, you would say you believe in a different God. The Mormon God is a different God than what all other Christian faiths believe. You must believe that your God is more progressive, hence the more recent religion. You must believe that your religion owns the pathway to salvation. Otherwise, why would you believe in Mormonism more than any other Christian, Buddhist, Indian, or Muslim religion. Ya see, they all have a common God factor; in fact, they share almost the same God .. what they don't trust is the pathway. You believe you will get to God faster, the rest believe the same .. who's on First?

I'm impressed by so many experts on a subject they know nothing about. Again, "better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt". Your bigotry is showing everyone ....naughty.

I wonder how many people know that Mormons believe that Men in good standing with their church and in the "Celestial Kingdom," a exclusive part of heaven for only Latter Day Saints most worthy, will become Gods themselves and will rule over their own worlds and universes? It's true!

I find it interesting that people look for any thing "shocking" to prove their point. First of all We believe in eternal progression. This means one day we will reach where God is to day however we will never surpass him because he is also progressing. We dont know if we will be a god one day Only GOD and his son WILL BE THE FINAL JUDGE. This may take it may be one year it could be 50 trillion years we don't know It does not matter. The point is we do all we can to return to our Father Repent of our sins and accept Jesus as our saviour.

Now, here is the real trick, Auto 101. Back all of that up with scripture.

1 Corinthians 4:6 "Do not go beyond the things that are written."

Here is something most of you might not know. The rest of Romney's family, Uncles, Aunts etc. live down on a HUGE compound in Mexico. Why, because the state of Utah as the rest of this country outlawed bigamy. So they all moved down to Mexico with their WIVES. This is a fact, and you can see journalist interviewing the family. Look it up. Any religion based on A GUY WHO TALKED TO GOD AND WAS TOLD MARRY ALL THE WOMEN YOU WANT TO, and also relegates them to secondary status is nothing more than a "mens club". Same with Islam, based on A GUY WHO TALKED TO GOD AND WAS TOLD MARRY ALL THE WOMEN YOU WANT TO.

Will, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is led by prophets who receive modern day revelation. The teaching of eternal progression has been confirmed by latter-day revelation. If all truth had to rely on past teaching from past prophets, then Christianity wouldn't have progressed past Genesis Chapter 1 and there would never have been more than one prophet in the history of mankind. For those reading all these posts and wondering what the Mormons really believe, I suggest finding a Mormon and asking them. If you want to find out what Christians believe, you wouldn't ask a Buddhist would you? Same goes for any religion.

Glenn Peach, I will put the same thing to you that I did Auto 101 - back a word of that up with anything documented. I am not Mormon, but I do dislike it when people perpetuate sensational rumors that are mostly false. Anyone can make stuff up and post it on the internet, but this doesn't make it credible.

Did you know that the Pope is secretly a homosexual atheist? Did you know that the Southern Baptist Church was founded by white supremest Muslim? Did you know that Methodists were originally polygamist until 1846? Did you know that the Nazi SS rituals were based on ancient Hinduism? Did you know that Charles Darwin recanted evolution and became a Mormon before he died? Did you know that Mohammad was actually a woman dressed as a man? Did you know that the Greek Orthodox Church was originally founded to allow priests to marry, but since the priesthood was mostly homosexuals, no one actually married? Did you know that 92% of atheists suffer from depression and drug abuse? Did you know that religious people are 8 times as likely to develop colon cancer later in life?

See, I can make this stuff up all day.

DanInCo,

I hear what you are saying, but most of the pre-Christian prophets were pointing directly or indirectly to the Messiah. When Jesus was on the earth, he promised his followers a helper, the holy spirit, to assist them in understanding the prophecies of old and how they applied to Jesus as well as everyday Christian life. However, in 1 Corinthians 13, it was made very clear that the miraculous gifts of prophesying, etc. would cease to exist at some point. There was no indication that miraculous gifts would resume in the future either. Also, with the writing of the book of Revelation, there really wasn't any indication that much more information was needed between that time and the apocalypse. The information contained in the New Testament was all that was needed to get us to that next logical breaking point in the history of God's relations with mankind - the apocalyse. PAST that point is where additional information on God's will and purposes would be revealed.

Now, here is the real trick, Auto 101. Back all of that up with scripture.

Will Where did scripture Come from? Prophets and Apostles. They at one time did not exist. Even the first 4 books of the New testament was not written until 30 years after Christ. And they were not all together they had a counsel where they but the holy library to gather. Some books were left out . some just leave you ? like the book Songs of Solomon. Even what was once part of the bible is no longer included in most the original King James version of the bible has the Apocrypha in it. Just because it is in the Bible does not mean to fallow it Unless you believe in selling your kids to pay debt.

Will, I think it's good that you're holding everyone's feet to the fire and exhorting them to back up their claims.

That said, even when you note scripture, you have to be careful of reading more into it than what's there. In other words, make sure you follow your own advice (re: 1 Cor 4:6). In 1 Corinthians 13, the passage that mentions the passing away of miraculous gifts is not a statement of specific fact (telling us that we will lose X gifts or abilities at X point). That's not the way it reads. It reads more like a general statement getting at the fact that even the God-given things of this world are incomplete and finite. Note that not only miraculous gifts (tongues, prophecy) are mentioned, but also knowledge. Also note that the focus is that these God-given yet worldly things will disappear once completeness comes (i.e. love completely manifest). Not so sure if we're there yet.

Sirboss 40% you better get one of those signs at the Dells This Is A Non-Profit Corporation- We Didn't Plan It That Way- The Government Did.

Very interesting read about Mormons at www.deism.com. This belief for many of the country's founders has a former Mormom discussing his experiences.

I really see Romney as a Deist believer!

A person is not at liberty to twist the scriptures in order to uphold their beliefs!

The Bible says what it says, and you can accept it or reject it.

If you choose to reject, then you are in essence rejecting God.

⁷But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 1 John 1:7

In 1 Corinthians 12 Paul had identified the problems associated with the differing gifts, one of which was the gift of prophecy. In 1 Corinthians 13 he continues to show the purpose of these gifts were temporary, and that Love would overcome any problem. Prophecies would indeed cease, because there would be occasion that they would no longer be necessary.

⁸ Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. ⁹ For we know
in part and we prophesy in part. ¹⁰ But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. 1 Cor. 13:8-10

When the perfect will of God had been received and written, then there would no longer be a need for these miraculous gifts. Bible students must never study with a prejudiced mind, but must always with an open one.

Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good. 1 Thess. 5:21

Thanks DisabledVoter. I think we are on the same page here. The miraculous gifts served a purpose for a time, and once this purpose was fulfilled, they ceased.

@Auto101

Will Where did scripture Come from? Prophets and Apostles. They at one time did not exist.

Yes, where does scripture come from? Prophets and apostles are nothing more than men. On the other hand, as 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 brings out, all scripture is inspired of God. In other words. It is evident from the miraculous gifts that the various disciples of Jesus had in the first century that God's holy spirit was operative upon them, leading to their written works being divinely inspired. However, once the miracles ceased, so did the divine inspiration.

I am a firm believer that if God is a real person and is using the Bible as his means of communication of his purposes to mankind, he would see to it that the right parts make it in and the right parts are excluded. I have serious doubts that some extra special revelations were given to Mormons, especially since so many of these contradict what the rest of the Bible says. Furthermore, as Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount, by their fruits you would recognize false prophets. The history of Mormonism is one littered with racism, meddling in politics, and hypocrisy, much like most other religions. If Jesus were here on earth today, I doubt he would be a Mormon any more than he would be a Catholic, a Methodist, or a Baptist. What would he be? You would have to ask him...

So then, god is a changing god? Why would god not deem us worthy of his revelations? Why can we not have healings?

On another note, which teachings contradict what the bible says? I'll give you an answer to each one that you come up with.

@bhonmann - I'm not sure I totally understand the gist of your questions.

1. God is unchanging. " Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." Jas. 1:17

2. He has given His Revelations.

¹⁶All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: ¹⁷That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Tim. 3:16-17

3. Miracles were for the purpose of confirming the truth.

¹⁵And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

¹⁶He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

¹⁷And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

¹⁸They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

¹⁹So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

²⁰And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. Mark 16:15-20

We don't get to pick and choose what we want from the scriptures. Miracles had a purpose, and Paul under the inspiration of God said they would cease. Unfortunately, a man comes along and he wants to teach things not found in the scriptures, and so then he requires a continued revelation from God to establish his own legitimacy. Joseph Smith claims he received the Book of Mormon from God in order to establish his false teachings.

1. Paul said revelations would cease, and Smith said they didn't. Who are we to believe? Bible students must go with Paul if they are to continue to walk in the light. 1 Jno. 1:7
2. Furthermore, Mormonism teaches false things such as baptism for the dead.

¹⁵And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

¹⁶He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Mark 16:15-16

The Bible tells us that one who believes and is baptized will be saved. How does a dead person believe? Sound hermeneutical principles are essential if one expects to achieve a truthful and unbiased interpretation of the Bible.

Finally, Religious confusion exists because of people's prejudice to the truth. I wish I had a nickel for every time someone has told me, "My preacher says or My pastor says." I doesn't matter one bit what your preacher or pastor or priest or whomever says, but what matters is what the Bible says.

²¹Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
²²Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
²³And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Matt. 7:21-23

You can choose to accept or deny, but the choice is yours and the consequences are great. I have given answers to your questions as I have understood your questions to be. However, It seems your questions are a bit spurious and somewhat ambiguous. I have answered according to the scriptures and should expect any response to come from that source as well.

²¹Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thess. 5:21

My reason in asking if god is unchanging is because if he is unchanging, then he will continue to give scripture through his prophets. Based on what you have said, I'll have to assume that you are Catholic, because they were the ones that were in control of the bible from the time it was compiled up until the invention of the Gutenburg printing press. Any other church broke away from the Catholic church and therefore "received revelation" to break away. If the Catholic Church is broken, how can you fix it? Where do you get the authority to correct what didn't have the authority to begin with?

You also quote Timothy correctly stating that all scripture is inspired etc. But what is scripture? The Catholics have the apocrypha (extra books), The Jehovah's witness have their translation, We have our translation of the bible (KJV). What about the other books that are mentioned in the bible that are not in the bible? Are they not scripture? Therefore, could the Book of Mormon also be scripture? If it is, then you are missing out on more, if it isn't and you read it to verify whether it is or not, then you have just wasted your time. I have read it and believe it to be scripture.

You quote Mark in regards to miracles. It says miracles will follow those that believe. So are you saying that since there are no more miracles, no one believes? Because that's what I get from that passage. If there are no miracles, then it is because people don't believe. But there will be miracles that follow those that believe.

Can you point me to a verse that says that revelations would cease? I'm not finding it.

As to the Baptism for the dead, Why bring up baptism for the dead in 1 corinthians 15:29? Why are they baptized for the dead if the dead rise not at all? As to the dead person believing, is it your body or your spirit that believes? When you die, your body is laid in the ground, but your spirit is still conscious. Therefore can still believe. Besides, what kind of God would God be if he didn't allow a person that would have believed if they got the chance to hear about Jesus and have been baptized, but never got the chance because they lived in South America in 1000 A.D. before missionaries made it over there?

I agree that what a pastor or preacher says a scripture means doesn't make it right. And that there will be those (more than likely in many faiths including my own) that will not be recognized because they weren't following what God said.

Where else does Mormonism not agree with the bible. I gave you what I thought were good answers to your concerns.

I posted a rebuttal, but it must have ended up in cyberspace!

I will post some of what I wrote again.

First of all your assumptions are as wrong as your interpretations. I'm not trying to be mean, but your reply gives no Biblical references for what you claim the Bible teaches. Without textual proof to verify your argument, there isn't really any sense on continuing a discussion.

1. Read post #5.34 as Paul clearly states in 1 Corinthians 13 that prophecy and miracles would cease. In 1 Corinthians 12 he addressed the problems in the church regarding the differing gifts.
2. God's nature is unchanging, but it doesn't mean He hasn't chosen different methods of delivering His message. Angels were used as messengers in the Old Testament, but prophets spoke to the multitudes.

⁸Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
⁹For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
¹⁰But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

When the perfect will of God was completely written, then there wasn't any reason for the imperfect gifts of miracles and prophecy.

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, willofGod. Romans 12:2

1. The purpose of miracles as stated by Jesus in Mark 16 was for the purpose of confirming the word.

¹⁵And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
¹⁶He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
¹⁷And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
¹⁸They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
¹⁹So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
²⁰And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Why do you pick and chose one scripture and ignore the others. Not all believers had the gift of healing as verified in 1 Corinthians 12 as well as many passages in Acts. If miracles exists today, then are you willing to drink deadly poison as Jesus states they could do in verse 18?

Any interpretation must harmonize with the Bible as a whole. Failure to use good and acceptable principles has resulted in a lot of false doctrine.

The doctrine of baptism for the dead is one such doctrine that has resulted because of misinterpretation.

The Controversial Passage

And so, in connection with his discussion concerning the resurrection of the dead, Paul writes:

Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them? (1 Corinthians 15:29, NASB).

Admittedly, due to the limited amount of information in the immediate context, this is a difficult passage. More than thirty different views have been expressed by commentators as to its possible meaning. In approaching the passage, however, two factors must be kept in mind.

First, no interpretation may be thrust on this passage which creates a conflict with other Bible verses of clear import. A fundamental principle of biblical exegesis is this: obscure passages always must yield to the light of more lucid passages which speak to the same general theme; never is the reverse the case.

Second, the correct view of this verse must relate to the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, since that is the primary thrust of the context. The mention of baptism obviously is incidental to the apostle’s main argument.

Let us now consider several factors in this enigmatic passage.

One must look carefully at the pronouns. Paul does not say: “What will we do who are baptized for the dead?” That surely would have been the construction if he had been alluding to a dogma which he and other faithful Christians were practicing. Rather, he says: “What will those do.” The pronoun is a third person form.

Some expositors suppose that Paul refers to an ancient heretical sect who, though practicing baptism on behalf of deceased believing friends, denied the body’s ultimate resurrection (perhaps influenced by Greek philosophy which held that the fleshly body is intrinsically evil). According to this view, Paul, by use of an ad hominem argument (i.e., reasoning from an opponent’s position), exposes their theological inconsistency. In other words, if there is to be no resurrection of the body, immersion for the dead is a useless procedure.

The chief problem with this, in the minds of many, is the fact that there is no first-century historical evidence of any such sect. It is true that Tertullian (ca. 160-220 A.D.), a church scholar in Carthage, believed this practice did exist in Corinth. He wrote:

Now it is certain that they [some of the Corinthians] adopted this (practice) which such a presumption as made them suppose that the vicarious baptism (in question) would be beneficial to the flesh of another in anticipation of the resurrection (On The Resurrection Of The Flesh 48).

In another treatise, Tertullian refers to the practice of those who “were vainly baptized for the dead” (Against Marcion 5.10). But observe that even he characterizes the practice as vain.

A second problem with this view is this: why would Paul mention, even in an ad hominem fashion, this practice of proxy baptism, without any censure, when such a practice is so patently foreign to New Testament teaching regarding the nature of baptism? Does it make sense that the apostle would rebuke one error (no resurrection), and yet pass over in silence an equally false view (proxy baptism)?

Some interpret the phrase “for the dead” as reflecting an expression which emphasizes the motive for the baptism, i.e., being baptized, in some sense, on account of the dead.

Hermann Cremer noted that in this passage the baptism was not said to be “for the advantage of the dead,” but that the dead saints, inasmuch as they will rise again to a glorious resurrection, provide the living with an occasion to be immersed (1962, 128; cf. Lenski 1963, 690).

According to this view, Paul would be saying: “If there is to be no resurrection, as some of you allege (v. 12), why do you continue to practice baptism, thus following the example of those saints (now dead), who were baptized in order to become Christians?” In other words, there is no virtue in the ongoing practice of baptism, which depicts a burial/resurrection, if, in fact, there is to be no resurrection from the dead.

Some scholars suggest that the preposition huper—“for the dead”—can signify the sense of “in the place of,” or “in the stead of” (cf. Arndt and Gingrich 1967, 846).

This might reflect the meaning that those being baptized were doing so in order to take “the place of” the dead. James MacKnight refers to an ancient Greek writer who describes the replacement of soldiers who died in battle: “They decreed to enlist other soldiers in the place of huper those who had died in the war” (1954, 203).

The meaning of the passage might thus be: “If, as some of you argue, there will be no resurrection, why do you continue to baptize folks to take the place of your comrades who have died in defense of their faith? If there is to be no resurrection, why replenish the church?”

Conclusion

While there are several possible meanings of this difficult passage, which, in general, are consistent with the immediate context and the overall teaching of the Scriptures, any view of the passage which clearly contradicts plain Bible teaching must be forthrightly rejected. The Mormon view of proxy baptism certainly falls into this category. It has no validity.

The Controversial Passage

And so, in connection with his discussion concerning the resurrection of the dead, Paul writes:

Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them? (1 Corinthians 15:29, NASB).

Admittedly, due to the limited amount of information in the immediate context, this is a difficult passage. More than thirty different views have been expressed by commentators as to its possible meaning. In approaching the passage, however, two factors must be kept in mind.

First, no interpretation may be thrust on this passage which creates a conflict with other Bible verses of clear import. A fundamental principle of biblical exegesis is this: obscure passages always must yield to the light of more lucid passages which speak to the same general theme; never is the reverse the case.

Second, the correct view of this verse must relate to the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, since that is the primary thrust of the context. The mention of baptism obviously is incidental to the apostle’s main argument.

Let us now consider several factors in this enigmatic passage.

One must look carefully at the pronouns. Paul does not say: “What will we do who are baptized for the dead?” That surely would have been the construction if he had been alluding to a dogma which he and other faithful Christians were practicing. Rather, he says: “What will those do.” The pronoun is a third person form.

Some expositors suppose that Paul refers to an ancient heretical sect who, though practicing baptism on behalf of deceased believing friends, denied the body’s ultimate resurrection (perhaps influenced by Greek philosophy which held that the fleshly body is intrinsically evil). According to this view, Paul, by use of an ad hominem argument (i.e., reasoning from an opponent’s position), exposes their theological inconsistency. In other words, if there is to be no resurrection of the body, immersion for the dead is a useless procedure.

The chief problem with this, in the minds of many, is the fact that there is no first-century historical evidence of any such sect. It is true that Tertullian (ca. 160-220 A.D.), a church scholar in Carthage, believed this practice did exist in Corinth. He wrote:

Now it is certain that they [some of the Corinthians] adopted this (practice) which such a presumption as made them suppose that the vicarious baptism (in question) would be beneficial to the flesh of another in anticipation of the resurrection (On The Resurrection Of The Flesh 48).

In another treatise, Tertullian refers to the practice of those who “were vainly baptized for the dead” (Against Marcion 5.10). But observe that even he characterizes the practice as vain.

A second problem with this view is this: why would Paul mention, even in an ad hominem fashion, this practice of proxy baptism, without any censure, when such a practice is so patently foreign to New Testament teaching regarding the nature of baptism? Does it make sense that the apostle would rebuke one error (no resurrection), and yet pass over in silence an equally false view (proxy baptism)?

Some interpret the phrase “for the dead” as reflecting an expression which emphasizes the motive for the baptism, i.e., being baptized, in some sense, on account of the dead.

Hermann Cremer noted that in this passage the baptism was not said to be “for the advantage of the dead,” but that the dead saints, inasmuch as they will rise again to a glorious resurrection, provide the living with an occasion to be immersed (1962, 128; cf. Lenski 1963, 690).

According to this view, Paul would be saying: “If there is to be no resurrection, as some of you allege (v. 12), why do you continue to practice baptism, thus following the example of those saints (now dead), who were baptized in order to become Christians?” In other words, there is no virtue in the ongoing practice of baptism, which depicts a burial/resurrection, if, in fact, there is to be no resurrection from the dead.

Some scholars suggest that the preposition huper—“for the dead”—can signify the sense of “in the place of,” or “in the stead of” (cf. Arndt and Gingrich 1967, 846).

This might reflect the meaning that those being baptized were doing so in order to take “the place of” the dead. James MacKnight refers to an ancient Greek writer who describes the replacement of soldiers who died in battle: “They decreed to enlist other soldiers in the place of huper those who had died in the war” (1954, 203).

The meaning of the passage might thus be: “If, as some of you argue, there will be no resurrection, why do you continue to baptize folks to take the place of your comrades who have died in defense of their faith? If there is to be no resurrection, why replenish the church?”

Conclusion

While there are several possible meanings of this difficult passage, which, in general, are consistent with the immediate context and the overall teaching of the Scriptures, any view of the passage which clearly contradicts plain Bible teaching must be forthrightly rejected. The Mormon view of proxy baptism certainly falls into this category. It has no validity. http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/74-mormon-doctrine-baptism-for-the-dead

Emphasis is mine with respect to the above citation.

How many false doctrines does it take to verify a religion as being false?

Joseph Smith claimed inspiration, and the Bible states it would cease when the Bible was completed. If you make the claim for continued inspiration, then you make Paul a liar. You also have no way to denying that Mohammad having made the same claim as Smith did not receive the Koran. You can't have everything your own way without sacrificing the veracity of the scriptures. Unbelief exists because intelligent people see through the hypocrisy of claims made by Christians which are often in direct contradiction of the Bible. I will again suggest that for any rebuttal to be valid, it must be accompanied with scriptural texts as proof.

" Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." 1 Thess. 5:21

I'm sorry for the irregular posting, but I'm not sure what is causing the jumbled behavior of this post. I posted once before several hours ago, and do not know where that post went. Is anyone else experiencing problems posting?

"However, once the miracles ceased, so did the divine inspiration."

So you believe Miracles are no more.

@ Auto - In the Biblical sense of the definition of a miracle, that is correct. It doesn't matter what a person believes, but what matters is what the Bible says. The written world says they would cease when the perfect will of God had come. Religious confusion has resulted because of peoples erroneous claims to things that the Bible denies.

The examples of Biblical miracles could never be confused with what people today confuse and define as being a miracle. Miracles of the Bible were performed for the purpose of confirming the word, as Jesus verified in Mark 16:20.

Here are some criteria which defines a Bible miracle:

1. Bible miracles were instantaneous. A person didn't wait weeks or months, but recovery was immediate.
2. Bible miracles were against the laws of natural science. Jesus raised Lazuras from the grave. The blind man's sight was restored with no scientific explanation, such as medicine or an operation. Jesus defied the natural laws by walking on water.
3. Bible miracles were verifiable. People who were healed possesed a disease that everyone knew they had, without a doubt. There were no examples of internal mysterious cancers, but they possessed problems that everyone could see, and when those problems suddenly disappeared, because they were made whole, God's word could then be verified in the miracle performed.

³⁰And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
³¹But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. John 20:30-31 KJV

These credible witnesses (disciples) were eye witness to the miracles Jesus performed. It's one thing to claim that you performed a miracle, and quite another to verify it before many credible witnesses.

While miracles have ceased in the Biblical sense, one must have confidence in the power of God's providence. It may seem contradictory to some, but the Bible also teaches the power of prayer. Paul wrote, "Pray without ceasing." 1 Thess. 5:17. God providentially cares for us and answers accordingly.

Providence is the activity of God as accomplished through law. It stands in contrast to the miraculous, by which the Lord operates independent of law. In providence, Jehovah manipulates his own laws for the accomplishment of his ultimate purpose. God respects man’s free will, and he will never overpower our freedom of choice in the use of providential activity; nevertheless, the Bible clearly affirms divine activity in the providential mode. It is a process that we simply cannot explain from our limited vantage point. We accept it because of our confidence in the credibility of the biblical record.

Perhaps the following will help illustrate the difference between the miraculous and the providential.

When Mary, a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), gave birth to Jesus, such was affected by means of miraculous power (Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:30-37). On the other hand, when Hannah of Old Testament fame prayed for a son, the Lord heard her prayer and answered it. He did so, however, providentially; she conceived only after her husband “knew her” (a biblical euphemism for sexual union); ultimately Samuel was born (1 Samuel 1:19,20). http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/105-a-study-of-divine-providence

The Bible is a wonderful thing, and it is even more enlightening when we interpret it in harmony and not in contradiction. Correctly presented, the Bible will bring about faith instead of disbelief.

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Rom. 10:17

The BIble isn't contradictory, but man's inability to properly interpret brings about confusion and disbelief.

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

1 Thess. 5:21

Scriptures related to lost scripture (not included in the bible)

Numbers 21:14 Book of the wars of the Lord

Josh 10:13, 2 Samuel 1:18, Book of Jasher

1Kings 11:41 Book of the acts of Solomon

1Chronicles 29:29 Book of Samuel the seer, book of Gad the seer, Book of Nathan the Prophet

2 Chronicles 9:29 Book of Nathan the Prophet, Prophesy of Ahijah, Visions of Iddo the seer

2 Chronicles 12:15 Book of Shemaiah

Nine other books that I can provide references to of Books that are not included in the Bible or the apocrypha that were considered to be scripture by the Israelites.

In 1 Corinthians 12 Paul just got done speaking about gifts of the spirit (prophesy, Gift of tongues, etc.) and just relayed the importance of many people having many gifts in each "congregation" so that all in the congregation are edified. Then in Chapter 13, he goes on to talk about having charity (the pure love of Christ) and said that a person can prophesy, but if they don't have charity, it is of no value. Nowhere did he say that the time of miracles is over.

No, I will not willingly drink poison. I'm not going to tempt god, but if someone gave me poison and I unknowingly drank it, and if it was god's will, I wouldn't be harmed.

I agree with your statement above about man's inability to properly interpret scripture brings about confusion and disbelief. That is the reason for such disagreements between many religions. Some that baptise by immersion, others that don't believe that baptism is necessary, others that believe that a sprinkling will suffice. If there really is one faith, one baptism as James suggested, there should not be so many churches.

You quote "prove all things; hold fast that which is good" By their fruits ye shall know them, whether they be good or evil. I will ask you, have you ever read the Book of Mormon to see if it is good or evil? If you haven't, then you haven't really tested the "fruits." If the Book of Mormon is the word of God, then it is scripture. If it is scripture then you are not doing your duty to search the scriptures because as in 2 timothy 3:16, All Scripture is given by inspiration of god and is profitable for doctrine...

If the Book of Mormon is not the word of God, then you have tried the fruits and found it to be evil. But until you have tried it, you can't say that it is a bad fruit.

In response to your comments earlier regarding baptism for the dead and the dead not being able to accept Jesus, What about John 5:25? The hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. I still don't see anywhere in the bible where baptism for the dead is condemned or contradicts anything. Like you quoted, why would Paul put such emphasis on the false belief of there not being a resurrection and (if false) lightly mention baptism for the dead. One would think that something that important would have been given bigger mention if it were false.

@ bohnmann

There are very good reasons why those references, in which you suggest are recognized by Jews, were not included in the Muratorian Canon. The 66 books from Genesis to Revelation were placed in the canon based on a very scientific and methodical process. The apocryphal books were not considered along with the psuedapigraphyl books because the did not meet the criteria that was set to assure that false books would not be included and held as genuine inspired scripture.

You reference Paul in 1 Corinthians 12 and 13, but fail to respond to Pauls statement in 13:10. While it is correct that Paul was showing the superior nature of Love over any other gift, it further supports the fact that he was telling them the spiritual gifts would cease. One cannot simply dismiss the statement he has made that these things would cease, and when the perfect will of God came, then those imperfect gifts would vanish.

Let's look at Jesus' statement in Mark 16 once again.

¹⁵And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
¹⁶He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
¹⁷And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
¹⁸They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
¹⁹So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
²⁰And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. Mark 16:15-20

The purpose of these signs and wonders was to confirm the word. In verse 18 is says, "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Notice, "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall nor hurt them;" If the purpose was to confirm the word with wonders and works, then how would someone accidentally drinking poison be a testimony to them while they were preaching the word? You conveniently use Jesus' statement made to Satan about not tempting God, while it is Jesus in these verses that make these signs and wonders a test that one could know whether a person claiming to be speaking on God's behalf was genuine.

You will not take up serpents and you will not drink deadly poison because if you do then you will die. Why? Because Paul has clearly stated in 1 Cor. 13:10 "But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done
away." The perfect will of God has come and gifts have ceased. You say you have them, but the Bible says you don't.

¹Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
²Hereby know ye the Spirit of God:Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
³And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
⁴Ye are of God, little children,and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
⁵They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
⁶We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. 1 John 4:1-6

One can know if a person comes on God's behalf by comparing their teachings with the confirmed Word of God. People who claim continued revelation, along with miracles, do so that they can inject their false teachings and pass them along as being inspired from God. God is not the author of confusion, and in His infinite wisdom knew how false teachers would try to convince others that they were teaching on His behalf. In His wisdom He delivered His inspired Word, and when completed, it was not to be altered in any way.

¹⁸For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
¹⁹And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Rev. 22:18-19

Furthermore, Peter exclaimed that God had given us ALL things pertaining unto life and godliness.

³According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: 2 Peter 1:3

What part of ALL isn't understood? The Bible reveals that it has been ALL delivered, and you and others who continue to follow and teach falsely say that continued revelation is necessary.

³Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you,and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.Jude 3

Notice, ". . .earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." The word for "once" in the original manuscript is the word, "happox" and literally means, "once for all." If God's Word was "once for all" delivered, and Peter says that God has given us "All things pertaining unto life and godliness," then one can easily understand that God's Word is complete and final. There is no longer any reason for a continued revelation.

Who should people believe? They certainly should not believe false teachers who come to them as wolves in sheep clothing. Knowledge and understanding is a wonderful thing when it is used correctly. To simply assert a proposition to be true does not make it true. Everything I have stated, I provide Biblical support, however, you continue to ignore those texts because you have prejudiced your mind to the truth. Your failure to "rightly divided the word" has been clouded by your belief that you can perform miracles, when the Bible says that you cannot.

¹⁵Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Tim. 2:15

Baptism for the dead. I'm not going to continue to repeat and explain why baptism for the dead IS a false doctrine. Again you simply ignore the passages given in my above post, and continue to profess something to be true when it is not.

The purpose of Baptism:

• For the remission of sins.

³⁸Then Peter said unto them, Repent,and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38

• Entrance into the Church

⁴⁷Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. Acts 2:47

• To put on Christ

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put
onChrist. Gal. 3:27

• To show forth His death burial and resurrection.

¹What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
²God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
³Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
⁴Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
⁵For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
⁶Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. Rom. 6:1-6

• Furnishes man with a clear conscience and saves

²¹The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 1 Pet. 3:21 KJV

Dead people cannot do any of these things. Can the dead believe? Can the dead repent? Can the dead confess? They can do none of these things, and yet the false doctrine of baptizing for the dead, as taught and practiced by Mormonism teaches they can. The Bible says no, and Mormonism says yes. Who do we believe? If one is concerned with walking in the light (1 Jno.1:7-9), then they will follow the scriptures and not Mormon doctrine. The Bible condemns when it specifically furnishes us with the purpose of baptism. When one take the totality of Bible teaching on any given subject, then there are many things that are therefore prohibited because it is understood when the thing required is revealed.

• Example: God told Noah to build an ark, and build it out of gopher wood.

¹⁴Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
¹⁵And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
¹⁶A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

Gen. 6:14-16

There are generic commands and specific commands in these verses. God commanded the ark be made of gopher wood. Noah was not at liberty to use any wood he could, but was limited to the wood God chose. The dimensions were specific instructions that also required that Noah follow. The generic command in these verses is the command to build. Noah could use various tools and carpentry methods to achieve God's command.

When God specifically provides a command and the purpose of such, then it isn't necessary for Him to provide us with everything we shouldn't do. Baptism as illustrated throughout the New Testament, was always exercised by living, breathing people who were following Peter's command in Acts 2:38 to "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins."

I have once again provided evidence from the Bible:

1. Miracles and prophecy have ceased.
2. The purpose of miracles.
3. The purpose of Baptism.
4. The revelations have been completed, and are final.

I am also sure that you will once again ignore these truth, and continue to espouse your false lies without Scriptural evidence. I could tell people that I can flap my arms fast enough to fly, but it doesn't make it true. Some people will believe lies, but those who do, are not trying those teachings by comparing them to the ONLY standard that we have that is true, the Bible.

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thess. 5:21

I have given scriptural evidence, but you have chosen to ignore it. Your quote from revelation, if directed about the "bible" means that anything written after the book of revelation is not acceptable right? Then what about the scripture in Leviticus that says pretty much the same thing? What about the books of the bible that were written after the book of revelation? Because most of the Pauline epistles were written after the Book of Revelation was completed.

For evidence of continued revelation, what about this scripture Matthew 16:15-19,

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ^aye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the ^aChrist, the ^bSon of the ^cliving God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon ^aBar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not ^brevealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this ^arock I will build my ^bchurch; and the gates of ^chell shall not ^dprevail against it.

19 And I will ^agive unto thee the ^bkeys of the ^ckingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt ^dbind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Or this one in 2 Nephi 29:

3 And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A ^aBible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.

4 But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a ^aBible; and it shall proceed forth from the ^bJews, mine ancient covenant people. And what ^cthank they the ^dJews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles?

5 O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have ^acursed them, and have ^bhated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people.

6 Thou fool, that shall say: A ^aBible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?

7 Know ye not that there are more ^anations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the ^bisles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the ^cearth beneath; and I bring forth my ^dword unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the ^atestimony of ^btwo nations is a ^cwitness unto you that I am God, that I remember one ^dnation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two ^enations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the ^asame yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my ^bwords according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one ^cword ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my ^dwork is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my ^awords; neither ^bneed ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

11 For I command ^aall men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall ^bwrite the words which I speak unto them; for out of the ^cbooks which shall be written I will ^djudge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.

12 For behold, I shall speak unto the ^aJews and they shall ^bwrite it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall ^cwrite it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto ^dall nations of the earth and they shall write it.

13 And it shall come to pass that the ^aJews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the ^blost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews.

14 And it shall come to pass that my people, which are of the ^ahouse of Israel, shall be gathered home unto the ^blands of their possessions; and my word also shall be gathered in ^cone. And I will show unto them that fight against my word and against my ^dpeople, who are of the ^ehouse of Israel, that I am God, and that I ^fcovenanted with ^gAbraham that I would remember his ^hseed ⁱforever.

I have given my scriptural references, you just don't like them because they don't fit what you want to believe. That's fine by me. But do what you keep quoting, prove that the Book of Mormon is false by reading it and determining what in the Book of Mormon conflicts with the bible. If you haven't done that, then you aren't proving anything.

@ bohnmann Where have I ignored any of your so called evidence?

Any rational person can read my posts and compare them to yours, and clearly see that each point of my arguments are supported with scripture.

The scripture evidence that you claim to have made is not being used by you in a manner that is consistent with rational interpretation.

Furthermore, I don't have to read the Book of Mormon to prove it is a false book, any more than I have to read the Koran to know that it too is a false book. The Bible is the only true inspired Word of God.

⁸But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
⁹As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Gal. 1:8-9

You seem to have a problem with me in continuing to use scripture over and over, and I can see why. You have yet to answer any of the arguments, except the interject your opinion.

No matter how many times you repeat your lies, it will not make them true. The Book of Mormon is a lie. Joseph Smith is a false teacher, and anyone who follows his lies are guilty of the same.

⁹Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
¹⁰If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
¹¹For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

2 Jno. 9-11

For you to prove the Book of Mormon isn't a lie, you must first answer the many citations I have presented concerning the all sufficiency of the scriptures.

1. Peter said God has given us "all things that pertain unto life and godliness." If God hasn't given us ALL things, then what things hasn't He given?
2. Jude 3 states that God's word had "once for all been delivered unto the saints." If it has all been delivered, then it means that there is no more coming. All means All, and is an inclusive term that leaves nothing lacking.
3. Revelation 22:18-19 is the inspired Word of God. Logically one can affirm that since Revelations is one of the 66 inspired books, and those books are those words that were "once delivered to the saints," then one must not add to or take from those words. Continued revelation theorists such as yourself deny God's Word by claiming that you are at liberty to add or subtract from the Bible any way you choose.
4. Galatians 1:8-9 is another passage that verifies that man is not permitted to change God's Word at their choosing. I am sure you will ignore this reference, just as you have chosen to ignore the plethora of citations that I have made.

People are content with following others, however, every man will be held accountable for his own actions.

For we must all appear before the judgment seatof Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. 2 Cor. 5:10

Personal responsibility is taught over and again throughout the Bible. Here is another scripture that disproves your false doctrine of baptism for the dead. I will be held accountable for me, and you for you. To teach that a person can be accountable for those who are already dead is false interpretation.

Here is more for your consideration, but I really do not think you will read anything I have presented.

Many people are aware of the unusual ritual of the Mormon Church in the practice of “proxy baptism.” This is the notion that someone now living can be baptized on behalf of someone else who has long been dead. This idea, with due respect to our sincere “Latter-day Saint” friends, is wholly adverse to the teaching of the Scriptures. The LDS doctrine contradicts many elements of Bible truth. Consider the following.

The Scriptures teach:

1. Obedience is personal; not representative, and judgment will be on that basis (2 Corinthians 5:10). One can no more be baptized on behalf of another than he can “believe in Christ” or “repent of sin” on behalf of someone else.
2. Neither disobedience nor obedience is transferable from one party to another. Read carefully Ezekiel 18:20, and note that neither sin nor righteousness is passed from one person to another; rather, each individual is responsible for his own conduct — be it bad or good.
3. The passage in 1 Corinthians 15:29, employed by the Mormons as a proof-text, does not support the LDS practice. Rather, it constitutes an ad hominemargument (an argument highlighting an opponent’s inconsistency) against some in the Corinthian church who denied the future resurrection of the body (15:12). If there is to be no resurrection, why practice a baptism of the body — a body which, according to the Corinthian aberration, is destined for extinction? For a more thorough discussion of this text, see “Mormon Doctrine: Baptism for the Dead” and “Baptism for the Dead: Revisited”.

In view of this, I want to reproduce an article that recently appeared in the popular news journal, USA Today (April 13, p. 7D).

“Jewish and Mormon leaders have agreed to jointly scrutinize a Mormon database that includes the names of thousands of deceased Jews, including Holocaust victims, who were posthumously baptized into the Mormon church — the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A committee with members of both religions will study how names get into the International Genealogical Index, which has an estimated 4 million entries. Mormons believe that proxy or vicarious baptism is required for deceased non-Mormons to reach heaven. After Jewish leaders initially protested the inclusion of Holocaust victims in the index, the two sides signed an agreement in 1995 removing the names of about 380,000 Holocaust victims from the list and halting further proxy baptism of Holocaust victims, celebrities or people who are not relatives of those seeking the baptism. Mormon officials said this week the agreement didn’t guarantee proxy baptisms for deceased Jews would never occur.”

Several observations are in order.

1. If the Mormons really believe that the salvation of millions of dead people is dependent upon what they do (i.e., submitting to many baptisms on behalf of others), why on earth would they mutually sign a contract with the Jews not to practice “proxy baptism” on behalf of victims of the Holocaust? Is Bible truth on the “trading block,” so that it may be bargained away because someone is upset over a matter?
2. What does it now mean — that many of the Jewish names have been removed from the Mormon database? Does this suggest that their names are removed henceforth from the “book of life” — as they perceive the matter? Can one’s genuine “salvation” be nullified by another’s post-mortem protest? If that were the case, the effect of Christ’s death would have been made void centuries ago, for the Jews have protested the significance of that event ever since it occurred!
3. And what of the Mormon statement that the signing of the “truce” did not actually “guarantee proxy baptisms for deceased Jews would never occur.” That sounds like the Mormon signatories had their “fingers crossed” behind their backs as they, supposedly in good faith, signed the document with the other hand! “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when once we practice to deceive.”

The truth of the matter is, as they have done so often in the past (e.g., in the cases of polygamy, and the alleged spiritual status of black people), Mormons have shown once again that their convictions are negotiable to the loudest complainers! http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/990-lds-baptism-annulled-due-to-protest-from-jews

By ignoring the obvious you will continue to show your prejudice to the scriptures. When people become emotionally attached to their "sacred cows," it becomes difficult for them to learn and accept the truth.

³⁹Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. John 5:39

We don't get to pick and choose what we decide that we like, and discard what we don't. One cannot be guilty of espousing a false relgion, and then proclaim they are true teachers from God. I have furnished my proof from the Bible! Where's your proof? The Book of Mormon?

²¹Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thess. 5:21

Just because your interpretation doesn't match mine doesn't mean that your interpretation is correct and mine is wrong and vice versa. I have put forward arguments and you continue say that my proof is not good enough. You have not ever proven that the Book of Mormon is bad so therefore I can go on believing that it is good. You say that I believe in lies and yet you don't put forward those lies. You continue to use man's interpretation of gods word and to explain scriptures that I use to prove my point. The book of Revelation was written before the pauline epistles so if you believe that that scripture applies to the entire bible, then you have to reject the Pauline epistles along with other books. You also have to reject the words after leviticus because it mentions the same thing there.

The real meaning behind the words in Revelation is that if anyone adds or removes words in the book of Revelation, they would be submitted to the curses.

As for believing that the bible contains all of god's word, in the last chapter in John it says that all the books in the world could not contain all of the teachings of Jesus. So if you want to limit yourself by believing that a bunch of men putting a bunch of books together ended God's free flow of information, then you reject the possibility that God speaks to man again. But go ahead and keep calling me a liar. I don't care. I've furnished proof and you reject it.

Once again you prove yourself to be a liar by ignoring the scriptures. Where is your scriptural proof? Not one scripture have you presented in defense of the Book of Mormon. Why? Because it is a lie. You are a lie if you believe and practise and teach that lie. Here it is again!

⁸But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
⁹As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Gal. 1:8-9

There you have it straight from the inspired pen of the Apostle Paul. No other gospel, and yet you claim that you know more than Paul by ignoring the Bible. It's not a matter of interpretation. These scriptures are so plain and simple that a person would have to have help to misunderstand them.

Your ignorance of logic and rationale are noteworthy. Again I will set forth the argument that you refuse to answer. If Revelations is an inspired book, and if it is found to be trustworthy in being so, then it becomes a part of the whole. Scholars refer to such as a "metonymy." Since the book of Revelation is part of the whole, then any part of the whole that one alters, is subject to the words of Rev. 22:18-19. By your lack of logic, you suggest that man is then at liberty to alter any portion of the Bible except the book of Revelation.

I have also set forth propositions surrounding other verses such as Jude 3 and Galatians 1:8-9, as well as 2 John 9-11, all of which forbids man from changing and altering the word of God. Again, you refuse to address these verses because you refuse to accept Biblical truth. It has nothing to do with interpretation. These verses are written on a 5th grade level, and are so simple to understand that the only people who misunderstand them are those who choose to do so.

How does John's affirmation concerning the enormous events surrounding Jesus' ministry prove that God intended the Book of Mormon to be written almost 2000 years after his statement? That is no argument for anything other than the volume of good works that Jesus performed.

You make yourself to be a liar by continuing to reject the truth.

He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a
liar, and the truth is not in him. 1 John 2:4

You are the one who is denying the truth by willingly accepting a false book that has destroyed the souls of millions with its lies. Mormonism is a cult and a false religion that is based not on the Bible, but on your precious Book of Mormon.

God is not the author of confusion. Nothing that was written by Paul contradicts John's writings. The Bible is not filled with contradiction. Your absence of understanding of hermeneutical principles has jaded your ability to rightly divide the word of truth.

Let it be noted that if the Bible does, in fact, contain a legitimate
contradiction of some kind, it has not yet been found. When all the facts are considered, each alleged biblical contradiction has been shown to be something other than a true contradiction. That is a powerful statement, considering the fact that no book in the world has been examined more closely or scrutinized more carefully. After the Bible has been put under the high-powered microscope
of criticism, and dissected by the razor-sharp scalpel of supposed
contradictions, it rises from the surgery with no scratches or scars, none the worse for wear. http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=822

More information concerning the reliability of the Bible.

The word “canon” derives from the Greek word kanon, which originally was a measuring reed. The term then was used to signify any sort of “rule” (cf. Galatians 6:16). Eventually, it was applied to that standard a document would be expected to meet in order to be considered inspired of God, and thus authoritative. And so, ultimately, it came to denote that collection of writings venerated as Holy Scripture in contrast to a variety of apocryphal or spurious works. Origen (ca. 185-253) spoke of the “canonized Scriptures.”

It is sometimes asserted by uninformed people that the Catholic Church, near the end of the fourth century A.D., decided which books would constitute the New Testament. Nothing could be further from the truth. There was a recognition of the inspiration of the New Testament books as they were being produced in the first century.

For example, Paul quoted from Luke’s Gospel and acknowledged it as “scripture” (1 Timothy 5:18); similarly, Peter recognized Paul’s writings as “scripture” (2 Peter 3:15-16), even though he and his fellow-apostle had clashed over the matter of Gentile fellowship (cf. Galatians 2:11).

While it is true that in the post-apostolic age there were some disputes over the genuineness of certain New Testament documents, the pristine character of the books, undergirded by solid evidence, finally led to their universal acceptance. And so, as Thiessen notes:

[I]t is a remarkable fact that no early Church Council selected the books that should constitute the New Testament Canon. The books that we now have crushed out all rivals, not by any adventitious authority, but by their own weight and worth (1955, 25).

But what are the criteria by which the inspiration of a book is determined? In brief, these areas are involved:

Primary Evidence

The primary factor in identifying the nature of a divine book is the information that is contained within the book itself. Here are some of the elements which may, in part or in whole, be involved.

Does the book claim, or disclaim, inspiration? (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:37). Some of the apocryphal books actually disclaim inspiration (cf. the Prologue of Ecclesiasticus; see also Price 1989, 42).

Did the original recipients acknowledge that it came from an inspired person? (cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:13). Does it speak authoritatively? (2 Thessalonians 3:6). Is it characterized by an exalted theme? Is it honest in its dealings with both its friends and foes? Is it factually accurate in terms of history, geography, science, etc.? Does it reflect a lofty sense of morality? Is it internally consistent? Does it harmonize with other inspired writings?

Secondary Evidence

By secondary evidence we mean evidence which corroborates the principles outlined above. This sort of evidence is not conclusive in and of itself, but it lends its support to the primary material.

For example, Biblical revelation is designed to transform lives (Romans 12:1-2). Does the narrative possess that kind of power? After it has been tested, debated, etc., has it won the approval of honest and reasonable people? Has it survived the test of opposition?

It has been said, “Homer must be handled with care.” The biblical documents glow brighter the more they are attacked, and the more vicious the persecution becomes (as in the present case of the Jesus Seminar assault).

As observed earlier, the Jesus Seminar wants to overturn almost two thousand years of history and revise the catalog of books contained in the New Testament. Let us consider two examples of their work in this area.

It is claimed that the book of Revelation should be removed from the canon. Does the final book of the Bible pass the test that would be expected of an inspired narrative? Yes, it does. For example:

(1) It was written by John (1:1, 4, 9; 22:8), and the early church writers (e.g., Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc.) identify this John as the Lord’s apostle. Additionally, vocabulary studies reveal similar word patterns in the book of Revelation and John’s other writings. For example the term “Word” (logos) is used in a personal sense only in John 1:1, 14; 1 John 1:1, and in Revelation 19:13.

(2) The Book of Revelation has a very exalted theme; it proclaims the victory of God’s people over their persecutors by means of the lamb who was slain and who is now reigning (cf. 5:9-10; 6:12-17; 11:15; 12:11-12).

(3) The document speaks with authority. The author is placed in the category of a prophet (1:3, 11; 22:9), and the book is characterized by prophetic injunctions which must be obeyed (1:3; 22:7, 10, 18-19).

(4) The record is doctrinally consistent with information presented elsewhere in the Bible (e.g., the divine nature of Christ and the concept of the atoning blood of Jesus).

Too, the fact that Revelation so wonderfully complements the book of Daniel, which Jesus Christ endorsed as scripture (Matthew 24:15), also argues for its divine inspiration (cf. Daniel 7; Revelation 13).

There is thus no valid reason for the Jesus Seminar to remove the book of Revelation from the sacred canon. Their biased inclination against the possibility of prophecy is at the base of this reckless action. We must remind ourselves that there is a curse pronounced upon those who tamper with the words of this book (22:18-19).

Not only does the Jesus Seminar propose to “take away” from the words of the Bible by the removal of the book of Revelation, these renegades intend to “add to” the word of God by the inclusion of spurious works, such as the so-called Gospel of Thomas, which they have characterized as “a fifth Gospel.”

In 1945, an archaeological excavation at Nag Hammadi in central Egypt yielded a collection of thirteen papyrus codices (books) totaling over eleven hundred pages. One of these documents contains the Gospel of Thomas in the Coptic language. In this form it dates from ca. A.D. 350. However, the original work is apparently much older since three Greek papyri from the Oxyrhynchus collection (ca. A.D. 150) contain fragments of the narrative. It is thus believed that the original Gospel of Thomas was compiled ca.A.D. 140, probably in Edessa, Syria.

It consists entirely of a collection of 114 “sayings of Jesus,” which are supposed to be a secret revelation which the Lord gave to the apostle Thomas. (That “secret” business ought to be a red flag within itself.) Some of these sayings repeat the words of Christ from the canonical gospel accounts. About forty of them are entirely new. Most scholars believe that the Gospel of Thomas is highly tainted with the heretical philosophy known as Gnosticism (Cameron 1992, 539).

Occasionally, some very absurd language is put into the Lord’s mouth. Here is an example:

Simon Peter said to them: “Let Mary (Magdalene) go out from among us, because women are not worthy of the Life.” Jesus said: “See I shall lead her, so that I will make her male, that she too may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” (Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar 1993, 532; see also Yamauchi 1979, 186).

Does that even remotely resemble the dignified status that women are afforded in the New Testament?

R. K. Harrison has well noted that this apocryphal work “cannot in any sense be called a ‘fifth gospel’” (Blaiklock and Harrison 1983, 450). It is quite apparent that the so-called Gospel of Thomas has no place in the inspired canon, and history has been correct in rejecting it—the Jesus Seminar to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Jesus Seminar is not a reflection of serious and devout scholarship. How can one legitimately be called a scholar when every syllable of instruction that he or she issues is erroneous? Is a man a mechanic if he doesn’t know the first thing about an automobile engine?

This panel represents the meanderings of a group of confused theologians who have lost their faith, but who, for reasons known perhaps only to them and God, desire to cling to some remnant of religiosity. Pity their blighted souls.

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/222-the-jesus-seminar-part-2

Many will try altering God's Word in order to allow them the opportunity to inject their false teachings.

Consider anothers viewpoint about the false religion of Mormonism. Mormons do not believe in the God of the Bible.

The religion of Joseph Smith, Jr. has its own bizarre concept of God. First, Mormonism denies the eternal God. Joseph Smith said: “We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see” (Lundwell, p. 17). The Mormons assert that God the Father “has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (D&C 130:22). The Scriptures clearly teach, however, that God has been God from eternity (Psalm 90:2). Moreover, He is not a man (Hosea 11:9) who possesses flesh and blood (Matthew 16:17); rather, He is a spirit Being (John 4:24; Luke 24:39). The Mormon view of God is false. http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1010-false-ideas-about-god

Furthermore, you have also chosen to ignore the many citations within my posts which Wayne Jackson wrote in the Christian Courier. You have not responded because you do not have logical responses to the truths that other scholars have made about Mormonism. Like so many other false religions, Mormonism chooses to ignore those things that prohibit them from practicing things not authorized in the Bible. I believe in the Bible as the inspired Word of God. You and your Mormon friends choose to see the Bible as containing some of God's Word. When people see the Bible as containing God's Word, rather than being God's Word, they then feel free to manipulate and accept only those things of which they agree. You can scream until you're blue in the face that the Book of Mormon is inspired of God, but you can only attest to that by denying the many scriptural citations I have given. You may not care about your soul, but I do mine. The Bible is our only source of authority in matters of religion. Because men like you and others who have chosen to ignore and distort the truth, however, many losts souls are led astray by your lies and deceit.

Again! Where are your proof texts for the lies you are teaching?

To All Other Interested Parties: To anyone else who may be offended by my responses with regard to Mormonism, I hope that through these posts, you can clearly see and understand the manipulative thinking in the minds of Mormons. There are good people who believe these lies, but it is not left up to man to decide what he wants to accept or deny. God's Word is either inspired or it isn't! If God's Word is inspired, then the Book of Mormon is a lie. If God's Word isn't inspired, then we are all in trouble. A person can either accept it or reject it, but one is not a liberty to accept only those things in which they agree while denying everything that they do not agree with.

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thess. 5:21

Deuteronomy 4 verse 2-3.

2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
3 Your eyes have seen what the Lord did because of Baal-peor: for all the men that followed Baal-peor, the Lord thy God hath destroyed them from among you.

Says pretty much the same thing that Revelation 22 says. So is everything after Deuteronomy false?

Then you have the gall to call me a liar.

I have put forth that the Book of Mormon could be scripture, and yet you refuse to even look at it, like it is radioactive. You haven't yet proven to me where the Book of Mormon conflicts with the Bible.

2 Timothy 3:1-5

1 This know also, that in the ^alast days perilous ^btimes shall come.

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, ^acovetous, boasters, ^bproud, blasphemers, ^cdisobedient to parents, ^dunthankful, unholy,

3 Without ^anatural ^baffection, ^ctrucebreakers, ^dfalse accusers, ^eincontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4 ^aTraitors, ^bheady, ^chighminded, lovers of ^dpleasures more than lovers of God;

5 Having a ^aform of godliness, but ^bdenying the power thereof: from such turn away.

You have called me a liar, but haven't proven it, You have despised something that has done a lot of good. You definitely have a form of godliness, but you deny the power. You are as closed minded as you claim that I am. And I am done.

Again, your inabilty to use logic and properly apply hermeneutical principles show an inproper handling of God's Word.

1. Nothing in principle has changed with the writing of these verses and what is considered the 66 Books of the Biblical Canon.
2. The verse in Deuteronomy 4 in context must be understood in reference to the 10 commandments. Show me where anything in the 66 books of the Bible negates or contradicts these principles.
3. I cited other New Testament verses as well that verify that one is not a liberty to add or subtract from God's Word.
4. Your logic is flawed. One doesn't need to read the Book of Mormon to prove it is a lie. Your failure to address Paul's citation in 1 Corinthians, along with the many other citations with reagards to the cessation of Revelation, has shown the Book of Mormon is a lie. Do you believe the Koran is inspired scripture? Have you read and studied the Koran? Your thinking and argument is irrational. Mathematics teach that 1+1=2. One doesn't need to understand Algebra or Calculus to know that through simple addition the calculation of 1+1=2.
5. Futhermore, you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of the scriptures, and because of your continual adherence to the Book of Mormon, you make yourself to be a liar.

He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a
liar, and the truth is not in him. 1 Jno. 2:4

Your refusal to acknowledge Paul's affirmation in 1 Corinthians 13:10 that miracles and prophecy would cease, demonstrates that you do not know God or His son. One must walk in the light as He is in the light.

⁵This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
⁶If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
⁷But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 1 John 1:5-7

You cannot walk in the light and in the darkness at the same time.

²²Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
²³Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
²⁴Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

1 Jno. 2:22-24

Here is some of what your precious Book of Mormon teaches about my beloved saviour Jesus.

The “Christ” of Mormonism

The Mormon view of Jesus Christ is equally at variance with the Scriptures.

1. Mormonism denies the biblical doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. This movement teaches that Adam-God had sexual intercourse with Mary, and as a result Jesus was conceived. Orson Pratt alleged that “the virgin Mary must have been for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father . . .” (The Seer, 158-59).
2. Incredibly, Mormonism teaches that Jesus and the devil were once brothers. In a speech, delivered in the Mormon Tabernacle at Salt Lake, “Elder” Andrew Jenson declared:
   

   “Thus we see that Lucifer, the son of the morning, is our elder brother and the brother of Jesus Christ, but he rebelled against God and was cast down from heaven with his angels” (The Desert News, January 21, 1928).

   Nothing remotely akin to this is found http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/357-the-mormons-seek-a-face-liftin the Bible.

Your precious Book of Mormon is nothing more than a lie, and yet you continue to hold to it and treat it with more respect than the Bible.

Here is some more interesting information that I'm sure you will ignore and deny concerning the Book of Mormon.

1. Mormonism contends that Jesus Christ was a polygamist. Brigham Young asserted:

   “Jesus Christ was a polygamist; Mary and Martha, the sisters of Lazarus, were his plural wives, and Mary Magdalene was another” (quoted by Ann Eliza Young, Wife No. 19, Chapter XXXV).

   This is the stuff of fantasy, not Scripture. http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/357-the-mormons-seek-a-face-lift

Momonism's does not teach nor believe what the Bible reveals about our beloved saviour Jesus. Here are some more interesting things one should know about the lie of the Book of Mormon.

How may a person distinguish between truth and error? Can a person
know which religion is right? Must a person rely on subjective
inner inclinations and feelings? Or is religious truth ascertainable and
knowable based on objective assessment? Most religions (e.g., Buddhism and Hinduism) base their credibility on some mystical or transcendental experience. Even some “Christian” groups (e.g., Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, et al.) claim that their credibility and authenticity may be established on the basis of the Holy Spirit Whom, they say, gives them their assurance. But when the Bible is examined, no such role is assigned to the Holy Spirit. Mystical religions have always existed, and have insisted that they were the recipients of leading and guidance from superior forces that are “better felt than told.” The God of the Bible, on the other hand, always offered evidence—proof—of the divine origin of the message before He expected people to believe (e.g., John 10:37-38; 20:30-31; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1; Deuteronomy 18:21-22).

The nature of truth is such that it does not depend upon subjective human experience for its veracity. Rather, God created human beings with minds that were designed to function rationally. We humans have the capability, if we maintain an honest heart free from bias, to consider and weigh evidence, and to draw correct conclusions. As Jesus said, “You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). The truthfulness of religious claims is
verifiable on the basis of evidence and rational thought. Humans can
reason logically, and distinguish between truth and falsehood.

NO ABSURDITIES OR CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS?

The nature of truth is such that it does not contradict itself. After
literally centuries of scrutiny by hostile skeptics and unbelieving critics, the Bible has been found to be completely consistent with the nature of truth, logic, and the laws of thought. On the other hand, uninspired documents cannot stand up to such scrutiny. The Book of Mormon is one such document. It lacks the marks of inspiration that characterize the Bible. In an official publication of the LDS (Latter-day Saints), 31 conditions are identified as necessary in order to produce an inspired book. Condition #9 says, “You must not
make any absurd, impossible, or contradictory statements” (see “The
Challenge...,” 1990, p. 1). This affirmation is a self-evident truth. Yet, the Book of Mormon is guilty of violating this very criterion.

In the first place, much of the King James Version of the Bible has been reproduced verbatim in the Book of Mormon—at least 25,000 words. For example, Mosiah 14 is a reproduction of Isaiah 53. 3 Nephi 13:1-23 is simply Matthew 6:1-23. Moroni 7:45 is copied from 1 Corinthians 13:4-7. Moroni 7:48 is 1 John 3:2. Moroni 10:8-17 is taken from 1 Corinthians 12:4-11. Alma 5:52 is Matthew 3:10. 2 Nephi 14:1-3 is Isaiah 4:1-3. The author of the Book of Mormon obviously had before him a copy of the King James Bible, and simply
copied many sections directly from it. But this is only half of the problem on this point. The KJV is an uninspired translation of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts into the English language of the turn of the seventeenth century, completed in 1611. But God gave the Old Testament to the Israelites in their native language (Hebrew), and He gave the New Testament in the first century in the common language of that day (Greek).Question: why in the world would God give His Word to Joseph Smith in nineteenth-century America (1830), not in American English, but in the British language of seventeenth century England? The obvious answer to the question is that God would not do so. This absurdity is inconsistent with the nature of God.

The reproduction of so much of the KJV in the Book of Mormon raises four additional concerns. First, Mormons frequently attempt to
establish the superiority of the Book of Mormon over the Bible by
insisting that the Bible has been corrupted through the centuries in the process of translation (a contention similar to Islam’s defense of the Quran). But if the Bible has been so adversely affected, why does the Book of Mormon quote so much of the King James Version? Apparently, at least those portions of the Bible are to be considered accurate!
Second, all textual critics (those who study the original manuscript evidence that attests to the text of the New Testament) know that textual variants exist in the extant manuscript evidence. The vast majority of these discordant readings are resolved when all of the textual evidence is considered (e.g., Metzger, 1968, p. 185). If the Book of Mormon were inspired, not only would it refrain from incorporating the King James Version within its pages, it
also would not include in those sections the manuscript errors that have crept into the text. Here was the perfect opportunity in 1830 for God to correct the mistakes that had accumulated during the previous 200 years (as well as the 1,500 years prior to the KJV). Instead, the mistakes were perpetuated!
For example, several textual variants occur in Matthew 6—a chapter that was reproduced in 3 Nephi 13. In Matthew 6:4, the Textus Receptus (the Greek text upon which the KJV was based) contained the words “himself” and “openly.” These insertions were perpetuated by the author of the Book of Mormon in 3 Nephi 13:4, as was the word “openly” in verses 8 and 16 of Matthew 6 (and 3 Nephi 13). Likewise, the Trinitarian ascription in 3 Nephi 13:13 and Matthew 6:13 in the KJV (“For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen”) is not supported by the earliest and most important manuscript witnesses to the text of the New Testament. Subsequent translations, including the ASV, omit the sentence altogether, or, in the case of the NASB, place it in brackets. The manuscript evidence simply does not support these additions as being in the original, inspired autograph authored by Matthew. Many additional instances of the same type of faux pas can be cited. The one who was
responsible for producing the Book of Mormon in these cases
unquestionably (1) relied on the KJV and (2) demonstrated
his ignorance of textual criticism.

Third, in addition to errors that are due to textual variants, the KJV also made grammatical and stylistic errors that were
naively copied by the Book of Mormon. For example, in Hebrew, singular masculine nouns are changed to plural by appending “im” (pronounced “eem”)—the equivalent of “s” or “es” in English. The Hebrew words “cherub” and “seraph” are singular nouns. The plural forms of these words are “cherubim” and “seraphim.” The KJV translators mistakenly added an “s” to these terms to denote a plural form (e.g., Genesis 3:24; Exodus 25:18,19,20,22; Isaiah 6:2,6; Hebrews 9:5). Alluding to cherubim, Clarke explained: “[T]o
add an s to this when we introduce such words into English, is very
improper; therefore the word should be written cherubim, not
cherubims” (n.d., 1:56, italics in orig.; cf. Lewis, 1991, p. 59). Yet
the original 1830 Book of Mormon reproduced the same mistake as the KJV in this regard (Alma 12:21; 42:2,3; 2 Nephi 16:2,6), though
corrections were made in later editions. The unbiased observer is forced to conclude: God knows Hebrew; the author of the Book of Mormon obviously did not.

Another sample of stylistic error is the use of the expression “it came to pass.” This expression is a Semitism, or Hebraism, i.e., an idiomatic oddity or peculiarity of the Hebrew language that has no corresponding equivalent in English. Newer translations either drop it completely or render it with an approximate English equivalent like “it came about” or “it happened.”
The KJV simply transferred the Semitism directly into English and, under its influence, has caused the expression to be naturalized into English religious usage. Nevertheless, it is not an idiom that is native to English. The Book of Mormon is literally inundated with the expression—as if the author was deliberately attempting to make his writing sound biblically or divinely authentic. In reality, he was unwittingly making it sound Semitic in seventeenth-century English! But God would not have communicated with Americans in 1830 through the convoluted pathway of Hebrew, to seventeenth-century British English, to nineteenth-century American English. Likewise, the peoples of the specific historical periods that the Book of Mormon claims to be depicting (e.g., the Nephites) would have had no earthly reason to have spoken in Hebrew themselves, nor to have their history reported in Hebrew phraseology and Semitic idiom. Apparently, later Mormon authorities, unable to completely
eradicate this stylistic feature due to its extensive occurrence, were
nevertheless so uncomfortable with the overuse of the phrase that they have deleted some of its occurrences when so many were used in close proximity with each other. For example, in Alma 14:7, the original Book of Mormon had three occurrences of “it came to pass”—in the same verse! Current editions have only one.

Fourth, in 3 Nephi 20:23-26, Jesus is represented as the speaker, and He applies to Himself the prophecy that Moses made in Deuteronomy 18:15,18-19. Yet,the author of the Book of Mormon unquestionably was relying on Acts 3:22-26, where Peter paraphrased the Deuteronomy passage, and then added his own comments. The Book of Mormon mistakenly has Jesus including Peter’s appended comments as if they were part of Moses’ words in Deuteronomy.

In addition to the absurdities and contradictions that exist within the
Book of Mormon in its close reliance on the KJV, contradictions also exist within and between the Mormon scriptures themselves.
Consider, for example, the serious contradiction in the promulgation of polygamy. The Book of Mormon condemns the practice of plural marriages in no uncertain terms:

But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms,
because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.... Wherefore, I the Lord God will
not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. 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; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts (Jacob 2:23-24,26-28; cf., 1:15; Ether 10:5; Doctrine and Covenants 49:16).

These referenced verses from the Book of Mormon enjoin monogamy
with uncompromising vigor. Yet the Doctrine and Covenants flatly
contradicts the Book of Mormon on this point:

Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and
Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer
thee as touching this matter. Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same. For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.... David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those
things which they received not of me. David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife (132:1-4,38-39, emp. added).

Two serious contradictions are evident. First, the Book of Mormon
clearly condemned plural marriage as one of the “grosser crimes” and
“whoredom”—at least among the Nephites. It specifically singled out the plural marriages of David and Solomon, denouncing them as an “abomination.” Yet Doctrine and Covenants insisted that David and Solomon were completely justified, and committed no sin in having multiple wives and concubines. If the author of the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants (allegedly Joseph Smith) had worded it differently, saying that God enjoined plural marriages at one point in history, but chose not to enjoin the practice at another point in history, or if he had said plural marriages were to be practiced by some people early in history but not by others later in history, then no contradiction would exist. For example, God enjoined animal
sacrifice in the Old Testament, and then forbade its use in the New Testament.

But this is not what Joseph Smith did! He specifically identified
the polygamy of David and Solomon, and then made the mistake of both approving and condemning it! This constitutes a flat contradiction. Two statements are contradictory when they cannot both be true (cf.McGarvey, 1974, 3:31). [NOTE: Yet another indication of Joseph Smith’s uninspired status was his allusion in the above quotation (Jacob 2:27) to a man being permitted only one wife, but “concubines he shall have none.” This reference betrays an ignorance of the use of biblical terminology. A “concubine” in antiquity was a wife—not a mistress (unmarried sexual partner)—despite popular misconception (cf. Victor P. Hamilton’s article, “pilegesh,” 1980, 2:724)].

Second, Doctrine and Covenants stated that the practice of plural
marriage in this life is an everlasting covenant. The term “eternal” or
“everlasting” as used in the Bible can sometimes be abbreviated to refer to a period of time of limited duration (e.g., Jonah 2:6). However, when additional terminology is employed that reinforces the primary meaning of “forever,” an abbreviated period is excluded. Terminology used in the Book of Mormon shows that “everlasting,” as applied to the covenant of plural marriage, was intended in its ordinary meaning of forever. Its application included one’s entire earthly sojourn, since the text says Solomon, Moses, and many others had practiced it “from the beginning of creation until this
time.” Other references confirm this understanding: “both as well for time and for all eternity” (D&C 132:7); “in the world” (D&C
132:15); “on the earth” (D&C 132:46,48). Even Joseph Smith’s wife,
Emma, was commanded to accept the additional wives given by God to her husband (D&C 132:52). Section 132 of Doctrine and Covenants claims to have been revealed to Joseph Smith in 1843. Yet 47 years later, on September 24, 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued an official declaration on the matter:

We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice.... There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy.... And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land” (“Official Declaration—1” in
Doctrine and Covenants, 1981, pp. 291-292).

In excerpts from three addresses that he delivered regarding this manifesto, Woodruff explained that if they continued to practice plural marriage, temples would be confiscated by the civil authorities, and the First Presidency and Twelve, and family heads, would be imprisoned. If, on the other hand, they ceased the practice, in order to abide by the law of the land, they would be able to continue the duties and ordinances of the church (including baptism for the dead). Question: Why would God refer to plural marriage as a perpetual practice that would bring damnation upon those who fail to
practice it, and then call for Latter-day Saints to refrain from such
marriages? God is timeless, and would have known ahead of time that the American government would reach a point at which it would call the Mormon practice of plural marriage to account. Therefore, He would not have enjoined the requirement as “everlasting” if He later intended to cease the practice. Nor would God have withdrawn one of His “everlasting commandments” simply because the law of the land by a pagan government made the commandment illegal and
implemented persecution! When in all of human history has God ever bowed to civil government in its opposition to His will?

NO CHANGES?

Another legitimate affirmation listed in “The Challenge” is condition #10: “When you finish in 60 days, you must make no changes in the text. The first edition must stand forever” (p. 1, emp. added). “Houston, we have a problem.” Informed students of the Bible are well aware that no original autographs of the Bible are extant. We are completely dependent upon copies of copies of copies. Not so with the Book of Mormon. The original 1830 first printed edition of the Book of Mormon exists! In the words of Latter-day Saints President Wilford C. Wood in 1958: “I do testify that the uncut sheets of the complete First Edition of the Book of Mormon have been reproduced in its original unchanged condition; that this is a correct and perfect restoration of the First Edition of the Book of Mormon as received by
the Prophet Joseph Smith and printed in Palmyra, New York in 1830” (prefatory material). Latter-day Saint authorities have repeatedly affirmed that the original Book of Mormon contained no errors. In 1883, a member of the First Council of the Seventy, George Reynolds, stated: “It was done by divine aid” (p. 71). Reynolds refers to the eyewitness account of Martin Harris—one of the scribes who participated with Joseph Smith in the translation
of the Book of Mormon (p. 91). Joseph Smith claimed to have found gold plates that he translated into English using an instrument known as the “Urim and Thummim”—two white stones fastened together by a casing of silver,comparable to spectacles. Smith would hold the stones between himself and the gold plates. In 1881, the sixth president of the Mormon Church, Joseph F. Smith, explained the translation process (as reported by Oliver Huntington):

The Lord caused each word spelled as it is in the Book to appear on the stones in short sentences or words, and when Joseph had uttered the sentence or word before him and the scribe had written it properly, that sentence would
disappear and another appear. And if there was a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect the writing on the stones would remain there. Then Joseph would require the scribe to spell the reading of the last spoken and thus find the mistake and when corrected the sentence or word would disappear as usual (n.d.,p. 168).

This procedure, that guaranteed complete accuracy of transcription, was further verified by David Whitmer. Whitmer, who continues to be listed in currently circulating copies of the Book of Mormon as one of the trio that constitute “The Testimony of the Three Witnesses,” described the process of translation in the following words:

I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother
Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character
with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man (Whitmer, 1887, emp. added).

In view of the specific procedures by which the gold plates were translated, the Book of Mormon ought to be perfect. Yet, when one compares the original Book of Mormon with a currently circulating edition, one observes that many changes have been made in the Book of Mormon since the original 1830 edition. This circumstance is completely unlike manmade translations of the Bible. All translators of the Bible are uninspired in their translating efforts. Joseph Smith, on the other hand, claimed to have been supernaturally guided in the process of translating the Book of Mormon, and preserved from making any errors. One official explanation as to why the original 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon was filled with grammatical mistakes and content blunders is—“printer’s errors.” This claim, of
course, contradicts the above claim of President Wilford, who vouched for the authenticity of the existing 1830 edition and even included in his reproduction of it a “memorandum” by one of the original printer’s associates—John Gilbert.
The memorandum recounts the care given to insuring accuracy in the printing of the manuscript that was brought to the printer by Hyrum Smith (Joseph’s brother), who, along with Martin Harris, supervised the project. Hence, the claim that “printer’s errors” are responsible for the errors in the original 1830 edition would be a suitable explanation if it fit the facts, but it simply cannot account for the types of mistakes contained in the Book of Mormon—the types of mistakes printers do not make.
Consider a few of the estimated 4,000+ grammatical mistakes that have been corrected in subsequent editions. The original 1830 Book of Mormon in Jacob 7:24 read, “but it all were vain.” Alma 48:25 read, “for the promise of the Lord were…” Alma 53:5 read, “it were easy to guard them.” 1 Nephi 5:11 read, “Adam and Eve, which was our first parents.” All of these errors have been corrected in more recent editions.
Consider also a few of the many changes that have been made that correct content mistakes. In Mosiah 21:28, “Benjamin” has been changed to “Mosiah” (since king Benjamin was already dead at this point in the narrative—Mosiah 6:4-5). In Alma 37:21, “directors” has been changed to “interpreters.” In 1 Nephi 13:32, “woundedness” has been changed to “state of blindness.” In Mosiah 27:29, “wrecked” has been changed to “racked.” In Alma 13:20 and 41:1, “arrest” has been changed to “wrest.” In Alma 17:13, “arriven” has been changed to “arrived.” The original 1830 title page listed Joseph Smith as “Author and Proprietor.” Now he is simply “translator.” In 1 Nephi 20:1, the
phrase “or out of the waters of baptism” has been inserted. It was not in the original 1830 edition.

Printers occasionally transpose letters or garble a word or insert the same line twice or omit a word or two, perhaps a line here and there. But the above changes are not the kinds of errors that printers make.

An honest and humble appraisal of these discrepancies should create great concern in the heart of one who believes Mormon documents to be inspired. Many criticisms have been leveled against the Bible over the centuries, yet have been answered decisively. If the Book of Mormon were from God, it, too, could be defended and its divine authenticity substantiated. However, the lack of adequate explanations to clarify such problems compel the honest individual to
conclude that the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants
are not from God. http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1187

I have by your instance included a refutation of the Book of Mormon by David Miller of Apologetics Press. Most post self posted and I will continue with another post. Please excuse any spelling errors, as I did not have a chance to spell check because it self posted.

In continuing my above post, I will call attention to the fact that the Book of Mormon is filled with error and consistency. The Book of Mormon teaches many things inconsistent with the Bible, (i.e. baptism for the dead, denial of the virgin birth, polygamy and others).

You will not respond to any of the cited references in any of my posts, because you would have to twist scripture to offer any rebuttal. I have consistently and undeniably offered Biblical citations for everything that I have stated. I have shown:

1. The Book of Mormon to be a lie.
2. The Bible teaches that miracles and prophecy would cease.
3. The purpose of miracles as stated by Jesus in the Bible.
4. The Christians doctrine about baptism.
5. Baptism for the dead is an erroneous false doctrine.
6. Joseph Smith to be a liar.
7. Anyone who follows Smith instead of the Bible is a liar.

I am sure that I have shown Mormonism to be the lie that it really is, and I am also sure that I have shown many other inconsistencies too numerous to mention.

You have not responded to any of the cited articles written by Wayne Jackson, which expose Mormonism to be a deceptive and false religion. I continue to offer Biblical and scholarly proof, and set forth logical arguments showing the many false teachings of Mormonism. In response you can only offer up total misrepresentations of the scriptures, along with references to the Book of Mormon, of which has been shown to be a lie. You consistently claim that I have misused the scriptures, and I'm the one who is a liar, however, you have not shown any specific citation to be in error.

Your response has simply been: You are a liar because I say you are a liar. I say you're a liar, and because I say you're a liar, then you're a lair. Again, you offer no scriptural proof for your accusations, but just your opinion.

I on the other hand have methodically set forth logical arguments based on the Bible as proof. If I have lied, then point out my error, because I want to know. Here is where many people fail in their willingness to follow Biblical teachings. They allow their emotions and preconceived opinions to guide their interpretations of the Bible. Like the the false teachers and unbelievers of old, they choose to believe a lie rather than the truth.

¹⁰And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
¹¹And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
¹²That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2 Thess. 2:10-11 KJV

You can choose to believe a lie, but the consequences of such will be eternal damnation. Not my words, but God's.

David Miller from Apologetics press and Wayne Jackson of the Christian Courier have been cited throughout my posts, and both men have methodically exposed the falsehood of Mormonism. They too have used Biblical citations along with scholarly works to set forth logical arguments against Mormonism and their false teachings.

When will you answer the pages of arguments that have been given as I have cited from these sources. You won't address any of these arguments, because I seriously doubt that your have taken time to read anything I have presented. To ignore is not to answer, but only to deny.

And yeshallknowthetruth, and thetruthshall make you free.

John 8:32 KJV

Would you willingly accept the truth if you were shown to be in error?

For the benefit of others who may be following our little debate, would you truthfully tell us what Mormonism teaches about Jesus?

Will you reveal what Mormonism teaches about how you believe the Book of Mormon as being superior to the Bible?

Will you show what Mormonism teaches about multiple marriage?

You have already shown what Mormonism teaches about baptism for the dead, and I have shown it to be a false doctrine. And yet you have shown by your continued acceptance to such lies, that you are unwilling to accept the truth even when plainly presented from the scriptures.

The religious lies espouses by Mormonism and many other religions around the globe is the very reason for the rise of unbelief.

²¹Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
²²Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
²³And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matt. 7:21-23 KJV

We must DO the Father's will, and not our own. Mormonism is a cult, and does not teach nor practice New Testament Christianity. Mormonism is not a Christian religion any more than Islam or Judaism. Mormonism changes their doctrine when it is convenient for them to do so. I have shown these things throughout my post, and you have shown nothing more than disrespect for God's Word at your continued allegiance to the Book of Mormon.

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." 1 Thess. 5:21

You have shown nothing how ever my skill is not in typing it is in speaking or I would have longer posts.

@Auto - Are you a moderator on this thread? I have tried several times to respond to your post, but they seem to never get posted.

I have spent a lot of time responding to the Myths of Mormonism, not because I believe you will change and accept the truth, but because there are rational people who will.

Let's continue this little online debate, not for your benefit, but for the benefit of those who would maybe like to know the truth.I will ask again, Where have I presented anything in my post that is false?

I have in the posts above, proven, not just shown, Mormonism to be a false religion.

Your response: "You have shown nothing how ever my skill is not in typing it is in speaking or I would have longer posts."

Mark 16:15-20 along with 1 Corinthians 13:10 has shown the purpose of miracles was to confirm the word, and that once the Word had been delivered, they would cease.

Your response: "You have shown nothing how ever my skill is not in typing it is in speaking or I would have longer posts."

I have proven, with the help of an article written by David Miller of Apologetics Press, that the Book of Mormon is a lied filled with grammatical mistakes and copy errors. It has also proven that over 20,000 scriptures were copied from the 1611 version of the King James version.

Your response: "You have shown nothing how ever my skill is not in typing it is in speaking or I would have longer posts."

I have proven in my above posts that Mormonism is not Christianity. Mormons do not believe that Jesus came to earth born of a virgin, Mormons do not believe the Jesus came and was God in the flesh.

Your response: "You have shown nothing how ever my skill is not in typing it is in speaking or I would have longer posts."

Since you admit to having trouble typing and writing, I would be more than happy to have a National Public Debate about the false religion of Mormonism. You can even invite the elders from Salt Lake City to stand your side, and I will invite many of my colleagues to stand my side.

It seems a little more than convenient that you seemed to have no trouble posting longer posts before all the information I presented. I think it more than a mere coincidence, and I'm sure other readers think as well.

Since I can't seem to post lengthy replies to this thread, I'm not sure if they have limited my posts, I will shorten my response.

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thess. 5:21

Everything I have posted has been backed with scripture. Everything I have posted has foundation in the Bible. Not the Book of Mormon or any other man made creed, but simply the Bible.

Your response: "You have shown nothing how ever my skill is not in typing it is in speaking or I would have longer posts."

The religious lies espouses by Mormonism and many other religions around the globe is the very reason for the rise of unbelief.

²¹Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
²²Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
²³And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matt. 7:21-23 KJV

Rational thinking people know how to read, and it is for them that I have spent my time responding to the lies of Mormonism.

I wonder, if you don't have skills in typing, do you have skills in reading comprehension? To informed and rational thinking people it doesn't appear that you do.

A couple of religious purists huh? I'll stick to following Jesus Christ and stay away from your unnurishing religion, both of you.

And just what Jesus Christ are you sticking with, the one who you believe will accept just any kind of worship?

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Matt. 15:9

I find it interesting how religious people want religion their way and not God's.

Jesus was so fed up with the religious elitist of his day that he severely rebuked them on several occasions.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay
tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Matt. 23:23

The world is divided religiously, and people think God will accept anything we are willing to throw his way. There's a great day coming, and few are going to be rewarded for their faithful service.

¹³Enter ye in at the strait gate: for
wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
¹⁴Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Matt. 7:13-14

Isn't it interesting that God's Word says FEW are going to find it? Peter used the same quantified when he wrote concerning Noah's salvation.

²⁰Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 1 Pet. 3:20

If you sir wish to refer to me as a religious purists, then feel free to ignore the scriptures and join the billions in the world who think just like you.

Religious division exists because every man deems to have his own form of doctrine, based on his own ideas and thoughts, when God through His Holy Word has plainly stated that there is but one faith.

³Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
⁴There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
⁵One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
⁶One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Eph. 4:3-6

That's what the Bible says, but I'm sure from the tone of your post, that you too are not interested in knowing what the Bible teaches.

The Bible is filled with a lot of wonderful, encouraging and helpful things, and if we are to know and understand the mind of God, then we must know Him through His Word. "And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jno. 8:32

There is a very big difference between people who desire to know the truth, and those who blatantly disregard the truth and destroy people's souls with their false doctrines. Jesus warned about giving Holy things to the dogs.

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls
before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn
again and rend you. Matt. 7:6

Jesus upset the tables of the money changers, because they were making merchandise out of his Father's house.

¹⁴And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
¹⁵And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
¹⁶And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. Jno. 2:14-16

People choose to ignore a Jesus who was angered at people who claimed they were religious, but their actions spoke volumes.

God has never accepted just any kind of worship that man was willing to give, but there are sure a lot of misguided people who say they're religious that believe that He will.

We so called Purists have a responsibility to God to teach and defend the truth.

³Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. Jude 3

We are exhorted to earnestly contend for the faith. It may not be popular to many, but without the truth man is eternally lost. It saddens me to look at our world and see the religious bigotry.

God wants unity, Jesus wants unity, and Paul taught the necessity of unity.

¹⁰Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same
mind and in the same judgment. 1 Cor. 1:10

The religious world sanctions division, it welcomes division, it teaches division as something to be welcomed. We religious PURISTS are concerned with do things the way God wants them done.

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To
visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself
unspotted from the world. James 1:27

We so called Purists are concerned with the Pure religion God talks about in His Word. Not just saying, but doing. Not just telling people how wrong it is to take the lives of innocent unborn children, but making sure the poor don't starve to death by being neglected.

Here's what Jesus said about the Purists:

¹⁰Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
¹¹Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
¹²Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
Matt. 5:10-12

It's about time that men quit pussy footing around with preaching a social gospel, and start revealing from the Bible what God really thinks about SIN! It's not popular, but neither was it popular when Jesus preached the truth. They crucified Him because they couldn't stand to hear the truth.

Man must put up or shut up. I am indeed a purist, who is concerned with pleasing God and not man. I am concerned about teaching Bible things in Bible ways, and helping others to understand the simplicity of the scriptures. I will not apologize for teaching the truth, especially when revealing from the scriptures false teachings of cults such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Mormonism, is a religion from Satan and not from God.

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thess. 5:21

A so-called "community organizer" has no special insight into people's real problems. It is a radical agitator position, nothing more or less. It should be spoken of with derision.

Jesus Christ was a liberal community organizer. Do you speak of him with derision, Bob?

Sure Bob. At least that's what Sean Hannity said it was, so it must be true... ;) How dare those community organizers educate people on their rights as Americans, eh?

Bob in Virginia-5210392

A so-called "community organizer" has no special insight into people's real problems.

as compared to "I bankrupted 2 companies but my daddy bailed me out each time" president.

Bob

I got a mailer from Club for Growth, GOP paid for.

One of the person's title was "Community Organizer."

I laughed my head off. Derision.

Re: Bob in Virginia. I rest my case.

People and their difficulties, huh?

Well, let's see. I don't believe there is any stronger love than that of a mother for her child. (not trying to insult fathers, but, face it, guys- you don't carry the child for ninen months. You are not the very first person to feel them move, and, well, you don't get morning sickness and swollen ankles and think its all worth it.).

I, personally, have never met a mother who would not give her child a heart transplant, if that's what was needed to keep that child alive.

So, tell me, what do you think of a man who does not hie himself to his dying mother's bedside? Who then lies about it for political gain?

I think it is possibly the most loathsome thing I've ever heard.

That Obama cultists excuse, deny, overlook, or ignore it?

True mark of cultists.

Gee, somehow in the Bible I never read how Jesus was telling them that they were being taken advantage of by the rich and corporations so they should band together to and sue for their share. I never read that Jesus was teaching people what federal agency to apply to to get financial aid, to apply to the government to get health care / health insurance, food stamps, get financial aid for college, or help in paying their mortgage.

Man, I really have to improve my reading comprehension!

No Joe--you repeat these lies about President Obama and his mother daily. There is no proof for what you suggest about the President and his mother. His statement, which you take out of context as you usually do, was that his mother worried about having coverage for her treatments. Who are you to say what she worried about. I know if I had a terminal diagnosis I would be concerned that my insurance company would come through with the payments for treatments and whether I might hit a lifetime cap. While she ultimately did have health insurance coverage, she had issues with disability coverage.

Your unending attacks on the President's character and that of his family show you to be a petty, narrow-minded small person.

DB, why shouldn't people know what agencies are available to legally help them get an education or assistance if they need it? Is it a secret? You think Jesus wouldn't have told people if such things were available? He was pretty good about healing the sick and feeding the masses, so I'm betting he would have been sharing the news too.

DB - Jesus didn't march around and talk about birth control and gay marriage either. As usual, you are yakking up nonsense. I agree with Pedestrian - he was all about healing the sick and feeding the hungry. You are a pedant!!

For crying out loud, Steeler- read a book.

In particular, "A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama's Mother", by Janny Scott of the New York Times.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/07/obama-misstated-story-about-mothers-health-care-new-book-says/

He. Lied.

Repeatedly.

Never even visited the poor woman- something he says he now "thinks back, and wonders if I should have gone sooner".

Yeah- like, before she died sooner.

You simply cannot believe the truth about your beloved idol.

That's your issue.

No Jo - Change the station, buddy. You are a pathetic, little, hateful man.

Bob, Obama was a community organizer....he was also elected to the Senate from Illinois four times......he was the only black president of the Harvard Law Review...and graduated summa cum laud from Harvard as well. I would dare say he does not deserve dirision. Check your facts.

KimH and all.....nojoblow has and is on my "IGNORING author" list...he is truly pitiful What a joke!

david

check your facts Obama didn't even finish one term and was absent most of the time.

Doesn't a Senator serve for 6 years? And, Obama was elected 4 times...that would make him 24 years in the Senate. That's not the story I heard, David.

As to his time at Harvard...that's as elusive as his birth certificate.

Floyd,

Check your facts. Obama served in the Illinois Senate from 1997-2004, and resigned from the state senate in 2004 following his election to the US Senate in 2004 where he served until 2008 when he resigned to begin his transition to the US Presidency.

I have a pre existing condition that does not make me blind to things I have seen in the PPACA that do not protect me nor is it universal coverage. Before I would jump on the bandwagon and call people stupid for not supporting this bill I would actually go to the bill check the questions they have and see if they are right. I watched the CATO Institute on this bill and the last question asked by the audience member was Have any of you read the PPACA? All the people on the stand defending it answered NO. She said I have all 2700 pages and it scares me.

Jdills: In bob's little world, Jesus said "Thou shalt amuse thyself by probing rape victims with your creepy, sick and perverted Governor."

Nojo...since you obviously believe everything you read, try this one:

"You are an irrelevant, thoughtless minion"

What you have to do is decide which one of the candidates most likely will govern the way you want them to. If neither will, then just don't vote. But if it is important to you to remove the current President and the candidate is simply of a different religion and you won't vote for him/her because of their religion, then maybe you ought to be looking at your scriptures again. You will find plenty of evidence to show that the Lord did not choose to demean, or trash others because of their beliefs. Unfortunately, some evangelicals have taken this course of action which is entirely unChristlike.

Those Southern Baptists have the choice of voting for a "Non-Christian Cult" member or a black man whose middle name is Hussein and who may be a secret Muslin.

Unfortunately, all this has nothing to do with electing a leader who is most likely to prioritize the economic and foreign policy issues consistent with one's core beliefs.

And you are an ass, so what?

DesertKing has posted his contempt for women here, particularly for those with whom he disagrees. I'm a liberal, I'm an Obama supporter and not once in my life have I ever been a free-loader but I know a number of family value republicans who bilk the system for every dime they can.

No. And why would you "DesertKing" consider me a nasty little woman and an Obama freeloader (whatever that means?). Actually, I work a 40hr week and I do have healthcare insurance with my work. I do occasionally go to see the doctor but mainly for preventative care. You know, women things like mammograms and pap smears. I also have dental coverage and even with that, I had to pay $5,000 of my own money when my bridge fell out andIi needed a crown lengthened and the root canals recleaned before a new bridge could be inserted. I dread to think what I would have needed to pay without dental insurance. (I'm sure a voucher wouldn't have been enough.)

My comments actionally concern those tea party people who were holding up their "Hands off my Medicare" signs. Now those are freeloaders. They want there healthcare but don't want anyone else to have any help.

Ramboet: A right winger always think that anyone who has a different opinion than them has to be a freeloaded, Marxist, Communist, Socialist, or a Welfare queen. That is all they have. Nothing else.

Um, ramboette?

Medicare does not cover dental- unless you have an Advantage plan.

Better get with the program- the Klub House Kids HATE Advantage.

They find out you support it, they'll kick you out of their imaginary bar. And you won't get an imaginary drink, or tune on the imaginary jukebox, either.

Hey there verno...long time no see!

Wow, Ramboet, it appears that either desert"king" thinks you have the power of more than one woman, or he's illiterate. Either way, he embodies the "tea" party to a tee.

Wrong again, No Joe---we liberals are in favor of Advantage plans---my father has one and it is great for those items Medicare doesn't cover.

Ramboet is welcome at the Dew Drop Inn any time---you see, she treats us with respect, doesn't lie to us or post links that are inaccurate. In short, she's everything you aren't.

That is what has happened to this country. We are so polarized that instead of listening to each other and assuming they have valid reasons for their position we call each other names. Neither the left nor the right is any different. All this Independent hears is a bunch of 5 year olds fighting over a toy. Neither the left nor the right gives a damn about the country anymore. This country IS NOT YOUR TOY. This country BELONGS TO ALL of us. When in office the Department of Justice is NOT YOUR Department of Justice it is OUR Department of Justice. Liberals just because I was born with indoor plumbing does not mean YOU speak for me. I THINK for myself and I SPEAK for myself. Because I am Catholic does not mean I am at WAR with you. If our politicians want respect they need to treat us with respect.

You're an idiot.

Mormon, not Morman "spell check". The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has with in it's organization the oldest Women's Organization in the world. DE2-You need to get with the times and get educated on it's millions of women members. Actually talking to some of them would be very helpful. The Church stopped the practice of polygamy in 1890- that was 122 years ago. Where have you been? Big Love from HBO has nothing to do with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I would think you would never admit to us all that you actually knew that, would you? If you did admit to it, we would see your real agenda here and if you truely didn't know, you would show your ignorance for making blank statements without correct knowledge. Break offs have occured in the LDS faith just like have occured in many other religions over the many years who have gone their own way. I guess you could liken it to the Baptist, Methodist, and Lutherns etc, breaking away from the Catholic Church and doing their own stuff now, but trying to keep something or some doctrine from the past that they thought was important to bring along. Please go to mormon.org to get caught up with the beliefs and doctrine of the Church. If for no other reason to actually be able to tell someone accurately what the Church teaches. No one is asking you to believe, just to respect the LDS beliefs by actually knowing what they are in the first place. I have many Catholic and Protestant friends, yet at least I know where they are coming from doctrinely and I always ask them if I am understanding them correctly when they share their beliefs with me. I don't agree with many of their beliefs, but at least I understand where they are coming from and I respect them for sharing. I would never try to mis-quote or say false statements about their religions as I know their doctrine and have tried to understand their perspective by learning from them. I invite you to do the same here.

Big Love is a production for television, and therefore uses the means available to it to create a story to be of entertaining value. It does not accurately reflect any teaching in the Mormon doctrine.

Women are held in very high regard in the LDS church. This is evident by what their own members say, and can be verified on mormon.org. You can also find the blacks viewpoints on the church there are well.

The doctrine of the LDS church teaches that you must believe in Christ to get into Heaven. There is no dependency on a spouse count, and a person who marries more than one spouse is excommunicated, regardless if it is allowed in the land where they live. They believe that 'every man will be judged for their own sins.' They believe that you can be sealed to your spouse forever, and not just until death. They believe that in order to obtain the highest kingdom of Heaven, you will need to be sealed to a spouse, but that this may not happen in this life, and that Christ will be able to make things right when the time comes. They believe that every person will have this opportunity, not just members of their faith. They believe that members of their faith do receive some unique blessings in this life and the next however. Most of this is sourced from their Ensign magazine.

I 100% agree with jacksonhole76 for what he said. I have been a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for 38 years. I grew up a Catholic and went to Catholic school in my earlier years. I have nothing but respect for Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Lutherns etc and I am friends with many people who are not of my faith. They are good people and try to live their lives as good christian people. I watch as they work hard trying to raise their children up in a good Christian home just as I do. We are all Brothers and Sisters and many of our belief are very similar. We teach our children to love everyone and look for the good in everyone. Our children are taught about a Father in Heaven and his son our elder brother Jesus Christ, and what a wonderful example he is for us to follow. As far as Mitt Romney goes, I think he probably is a good man but, I don't plan to vote for him this fall if he is the Rep candidate and that is my choice.

the spelling might be wrong but the concept is correct.

Raemboat, let me clue you in to the freeloaders who are holding up the signs "Hands off my Medicare". It started in the late 1960's or early 1970's. Our employer took 1+ percent of our wages before taxes and gave it to Uncle Sam...Medicare Tax...ever heard of it? It is at 1.45% now. And, that 1% plus was matched by our employer, making it over 2% of what we earned going to Medicare.

Then, we reach the magic age...65. We sign up for Social Security and Medicare. Now, almost $100 comes out of every Social Security check to pay for our Medicare. If we have a spouse, the spouse pays $100 too. So, we are paying $200 a month for coverage in retirement...AFTER we paid 1-2% of what we earned for 30-40 years to Medicare.

The freeloaders are the aliens who come here at age 60 and jump on Medicare at 65. It's the people who figure out how to bilk the system and get on disability at age 30 or 35 and automatically get Medicare after 2 years for the rest of their life.

It's not the people who work all their lives, retire at 65 and have Medicare after age 65...

I don't think it is fair to Judge a man based on his religion even as a presidential candidate. I am a liberal, but I disagree De2Or2010. Judging Romneybased solely on his religion is not better than the Tea Parties judging Obama on his race, place of birth, or his so called Muslim religion.

De2.......you DO realize that Hollywood produces shows for entertainment and that Big Love is NOT a documentary film? Your ignorance is showing.

Jackson

Yes, the "mainstream" LDS church stopped the practice of polygamy in 1890 consistent with a "revelation" from Jesus Christ. Coincidentally, the US Congress held the position that Utah could not join the Union as a polygamous state.

So it worked out, Jesus stepped in at the propitious moment to change church doctrine and resolve the political problem.

Not all Mormons accepted the change. Some moved to Mexico (the Romney family) or Canada. Some continued the practice in Utah and Arizona as Fundamentalist Mormons.

The only thing important in this election is who you think will do a better job of running this country. Who do you think will as president protect the rights of all citizens of this country equally. Not what church someone attends or doesn't attend. As I once heard Henry W Maier say once elected it doesn't matter which party you belonged to. If you don't get the garbage picked up and the snow plowed you won't be reelected. So which candidate will get the snow plowed and the garbage picked up.

Bravo, Jody *stands and applauds*.

With an income of $57,000 per day, access to the best health care for his family is one thing Romney doesn't have to worry about. The rest of us----well, he just doesn't seem to care.

Romney has no experience being poor or working class. He has never had to go without, he has never had to wonder how to cover the rent/mortgage not to mention basics like food, while trying to cover medical bills of a loved one suffering with a catstrophic illness. Some people are capable of true empathy, some are not. Romeny is of the latter catagory. In private, maybe he is completely different. In public, he comes across as insincere without a glimmer of understanding or compasion. He is a good businessman, no doubt, but the traits that make him a good business man make him a bad choice for President. We do not need a CEO, we need a leader who sees more than the bottom line. Stop with the national debt bull-ticky, its old and worn out. It is a scarey line from Republicans that only a handful of people truly understand, and those experts say it is not a good idea to try to fix it in one fell swoop while the economy is depressed.

Uh, which candidate handed money to a woman who was out of work, and about to have her electricity shut off, while he was campaigning?

Which candidate talked- a lot- about "hearing" his mother fight with her health insurer while she was dying, which turned out to be a double lie because, first, there was NEVER a problem with her health insurer, and second, he NEVER VISITED HER WHILE SHE WAS DYING!!!

It was Romney who handed the woman cash- and got her a job t the campaign headquarters.

It was Obama who lied- probably the lowest lie ever told by a politician.

So, your point again? I think it had something to do with empathy?

Let me clue you in, but- any man- and I mean any- who could not just let his own mother die without ever bothering to go see her- then lie about it for political gain- lacks any human decency- never mind empathy.

That you could overlook that? Speaks volumes about how much it really matters to you.

Its Obama that has NO empathy for the middle class. He has destroyed too many peoples lives , drove them to welfare, made them pay for OTHERS laziness. Obama has bankrupted our nation, morally and financially. Obama doesn't see the bottom line, he holds in his mind what he thinks is a blank checkbook to spend spend spend us into oblivion. What gives him the right to ruin us financially for his and his libs self interests?

Mag 50 to mostly. Mitt has only donated 1000's of hours of his time being away from his family counseling with people in his Church positions without any pay for many years. There is a great article written from the LA Times that covers this subject. Mitt is very humble about his work in this capacity. If he talked about it, many would say he is just bragging. If he says nothing- many here complain that he won't talk about it. What would you do if you were in his shoes. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. How many people have their marriages intact today? How many people found employment from his efforts and counseling? How many people received help from the Church to put food on their tables or to pay a utility or medical bill? How many youth were pointed in the right direction after making some poor choices like we all did? Please remember Mitt did this type of service for over 10 years- and some here say he doesn't know how to relate to people. Give me a break ! You do that kind of service for 10 plus years and tell me it didn't effect you to really understand the human condition. There is also a spiritual counseling aspect to all of this that is on top of all the temporal counseling Mitt offered. I give the man credit for at least giving it his all. I would expect nothing other than his best in getting our Country back on the right course, while we still can.

Romney is rich. He's entitled. You need to meet a few of these people. They actually believe they are better than the regular folks. They deserve what they get because they are so special.

They have as much empathy for you and your family as they do for a farm animal that ends up on their dinner table. Lack of empathy is why the rich just can't seem to get with the idea that "the little people" could ever be upset.

Yes sir. What we need are more breaks for the rich. That'll get us going right.

no joe, no bo, nj

Uh, which candidate handed money to a woman who was out of work, and about to have her electricity shut off, while he was campaigning? Herman Cain.

Nojo...a word of caution...The article being commented upon is in regards to Mitt Romney and the Mormon church. When you post comments that are so completely irrelevant, you either come across as a severely unbalanced fool, or that you are purposely trying to deflect from your spoiled princess's religion.

Either way, you come across as a completely thoughtless minion. It's like the normal people posting here are having a conversation about daisies in the springtime and you jump in commenting on the various bacteria that grow on pig crap.

It's really creepy, nojo.

Jody I had insurance I still went bankrupt because of bills that weren't covered. The ACA doesn't protect you from that. If your health condition isn't the one the current administration wants to support good luck Charley. When thinking about the ACA assume the admistration is diametrically opposed to your position. Now look at the bill will it give you what you need. Pg 801 Sec 1751 of the ACA

Dont forget that Mitt also donates roughly 15% of his income to welfares and charities. Obama didnt even donate 1% until he started running for office. Joe Biden donates a measley $500 a year. Talk about great guys, huh?

Raff - don't forget that Mormon's are required to "donate" 10% of their gross income to the church as "tithing". That probably cuts into the 5% left over (I'm not sure if your "rough" estimate is based on gross or net) and is not as impressive as you are trying to pretend it is.

Just who are you trying to fool?

Raff...don't you forget that Romney is required to "donate" 10% of his gross income to the Mormon church as "tithing". Are your numbers based on gross or net income? I'm sure you researched the numbers thoroughly - would you mind quoting your source and sharing with us exactly who everyone donated to?

Sounds like Mittsy, at best, donated less than 5% - if your numbers are based on net income, it is dramatically less. Either way - it's not nearly as impressive as you are trying to make it out to be. Just who are you trying to fool, raff?

It's tough trying to defend a slime-ball, isn't it. You have my pity.

Shocked,

It is still a free will donation to a charitable organization. So he did donate 15% of his income. There was an article that went over this a number of weeks ago. Sometimes he pays more other times he pays less.

Sorry for the double post -

Bohnmann, it really depends on your opinion of what free will is. If Mormons do not pay their tithing, they lose admittance into the temples - let alone admittance into the "higher realms" in the afterlife. There is absolutely no way he could have become a bishop or stake president if he did not/does not pay his tithing.

When most people give to charity, they expect nothing in return. When Mitt pays his tithing, he expects to receive all of the services the church provides. It would be more accurate to describe it as a "Mormon Tax".

If you truly believe in Mormonism, you have to pay your tithing. Period. That does not constitute "free will" if you ask me...although it is a blurry line - just like everything else in little Mittsy's life.

I can sort of agree. But he still had a choice to pay or not to pay. If you can point to something tangible that Mitt got in return directly from paying his tithing, I would be able to see your point to it not being charity.

But then someone who donates to an animal shelter because it fulfils them to donate to help animals is also not paying to charity.

Another person that funds the building of houses for habitat for humanity is also not paying charity because they get fulfillment out of knowing their money was spent for good.

Yes, most Latter Day Saints believe that tithing is an essential commandment, but that doesn't make it not charity or not free will. We pay it out of our own free will. And no, I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination.

No he wouldn't be allowed into the temples, and no he wouldn't have become a Bishop if he didn't pay his tithing, but that is between him and his god. He could have paid 2% and said that he was still paying 10%, but that would make him a liar.

Good one.

they already have.the story broke last week.

I missed that part of the story. Regardless, Donald Trump should have it investigated for authenticity.

I normally regard religion as off limits for people running for office. America is all about diversity and this is their personal choice. However.... there is no real diversity in the Mormon Church and there seems to be no place for women's rights in the Mormon Church. How is Mitt going to be able to relate to mainstream America. That's a problem for the role of president and serving ALL of the American people.

Actually that story broke when his father ran for president. The SCOTUS decided George Romney was an American by birth then so that makes Mitt an American by birth.

It shouldn't matter but the GOP has made religion and faith a big part of their party's identity. Once they did that, every republican's religion is fair game. Personally, I don't care what any candidate's religion is as long as they don't try to shove it and their beliefs on me.

Why is this important? The man is a Morman. Their beliefs are right out of a Twilight Zone episode. How can you trust someone how believes this crap. I should know. I was raised Mormon but as I got older I saw the light. These people are crazy. And no I'm not Liberal or Conservative.

Workingman...never mind; you got it right on the second try. It's Mormon.

that's the issue for me. when you look at virtually all religions, they can be seen as believing the unbelievable. they all do it.

however, some unbelievable stuff is more believable or at least comprehensible than other stuff. the mormons say a lost tribe of israel fought a war with the american indian natives. this is clearly stuff made up to appeal to the mindset of the american in the1850's. i wonder about a person who can convince themselves that's valid or at the very least, not question that nonsense.

what other fabrications can that person convince themselves to accept?

It's funny- the ONLY people I ever see making an issue of people's religion are liberal democrats. Then they have the unmitigated gall to claim it's okay, because republicans do it.

That line of reasoning goes along with the "war on women" and trying to outlaw birth control, because there are those who object to providing it- free.

Let me tell you something- I object to providing everybody in this country with vitamins, free.

Buy your own.

And keep your long, pointy noses out of people's religious beliefs. They are none of your business, and it is unAmerican to delve into them.

Ever hear of the Constitution?

Honestly, Obama cultists are among the least tolerant, self- righteous people ever created. They, sadly, believe themselves to be enlightend-but the only thing they are experts on is the "wit and wisdom" of Obama.

Which ain't much.

hmmm. odd coincidence. if you spell check misspelled morman, you get two options:

Mormon

and

moron.

yikes!

And keep your long, pointy noses out of people's religious beliefs. They are none of your business, and it is unAmerican to delve into them.

Then why has the right-wing conservative nut jobs, for three solid years, continually brought into question Obama's religious beliefs (in case you hadn't heard, they call Obama a Muslim). Who are the self-righteous unAmericans?

the mormons say a lost tribe of israel fought a war with the american indian natives

...no.

I'm Mormon, and I can say that this is nothing that even remotely resembles our beliefs. Yes, we believe that the Book of Mormon is the record of the descendants of some citizens of Jerusalem who were led to the Americas to escape the Babylonian invasion of 600 BC. We don't refer to them as the "lost tribes", however, and we don't believe that they fought a war with any people already here. Any of the wars in the Book of Mormon were infighting among the two main factions of the original group.

And, yes, I am fully aware that you might not think this sounds less implausible than what you already said. All religions seem implausible to people who don't believe in them; Mormonism isn't any different in that regard. If you're going to mock our beliefs, however, at least have the courtesy to take a few minutes and find out what they actually are.

I believe the conservative right, religious fundamentalist, tea party base of the Republican party has made religion so important. How many times have we heard that Obama is a Muslim? Believe what you want, just keep it between you and your god.

No Joe - you are truly a pathetic, little man. So sorry for you and any woman/women who may be in your life.

Workingman this Catholic has a copy of the 13 tenets of Joseph Smith right here which one do you want to debate? Thank You St John's Cathedral HS Milwaukee for teaching me to think not react.

however, some unbelievable stuff is more believable or at least comprehensible than other stuff. the mormons say a lost tribe of israel fought a war with the american indian natives. this is clearly stuff made up to appeal to the mindset of the american in the1850's. i wonder about a person who can convince themselves that's valid or at the very least, not question that nonsense.

Could you do a little bit of research before you make an accusation? And I can't believe that you actually think we believe that nonsense.

Mormons believe we exist in heaven before we are born.

During a war between heaven and hell, some sided with Satan, others God. Then some chose not to fight or fought less than valiantly. The last group of people were cursed for their actions by being born black.

Harry Reid is also a mormon. The religion is a sham...but what religion isn't?

Mormons believe that we are all children of God. They believe that we are all created by him. Source: lds.org/plan/god-is-our-father

Mormons believe that Joseph Smith translated a set of plates that were preserved for this day. Source: mormon.org/book-of-mormon/

12 men saw the plates, and were asked to record their witness of them. Source: lds.org/scriptures/bofm/introduction

Emma Smith did not see the plates, as they were covered in a cloth, however she did handle them physically. Source: lds.org/ensign/1992/08/my-great-great-grandmother-emma-hale-smith

Mormons do NOT believe that they get their own planet. I do not know the original source of this claim. Besides, knowing my luck, I'd get Pluto. Their beliefs on the afterlife can be found partly here, but a more thorough review of their site is needed for more: mormon.org/plan-of-happiness/

Their own writings say this about 'the black man':

"For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile."

Source: The Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 26:33 (www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/26)

I think this is a really good essay on the whole blacks-and-the-priesthood thing. The church has no official doctrine, this is just an essay by one member who was fairly knowledgeable about this issue:

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=509

Thank you Lothimos for giving us facts instead of opinions stated as facts! As I read through the comments, a couple of things stood out to me:

1. People really want what they feel is "entitled" to them because they don't make as much money as they would like to. Who is to blame for that? Why does that make you entitled? I can't afford insurance for my family, but I know that I am to blame for that! Why would I ask other people to help me?

2. I want a business man in the Whitehouse! I want a President, male or female, that knows how to make money! It has been proven over and over that most people without money don't know what to do with it when they get it! Look at the lottery winners, the professional athletes, etc. that didn't grow up with money that couldn't keep it when they DID get it. I know that not all are like that, but too many are!

I don't understand why it is so bad that Romney has money and insurance. Good for him! I sounds like there are a lot of jealous people out there...

It's not so bad, but it is a falacy to believe that a business man in the White House is any better than Republicanism is "fiscally responsible" as they had no problem dumping + 2 trillion into Iraq & Afg with no revenue to pay for it.

luxsuvlover: Who are these peolpe trying to fool because the mormon religion is a cult and having being kicked out of the mormon church in salt lake city and having things said to me that were no where near politically correct is an understatement. I know all about sham, ham and jabath from doing a resreach paper on the mormom's in school. They call blacks the cursed race and don't want any of their females around any black men period because they do not at all care about mix race's and they have no problem at all telling you. The Ku Klux Klan and the nazi's have a lot in common with joseph smith who was their leader until he got himself beheaded in springfield Ill. because of his crazy religion.

Sounds like you got an "F" on your paper.

hawk: why do you feel the need to lie about Mormon's?

Hawk -

Joseph Smith was shot and killed at Carthage jail. He was not beheaded. For someone who claims to have been a member of the Mormon church, you don't seem to know much about it.

Establishment Mitt Romney isn't a Christian. Rev. Franklin Graham said himself Romney isn't a part of the Judeo Christian Faith! Mormon believe in a lot of weird things no Christian would ever accept theologically. Most Christians don't recognize Mormonism. It's a false religious system created by a man,- Joseph Smith a practicing Polygamist and criminal.

jazzy- here is the reason some, such as Rev. Graham, say Mormons are not Christian. The Catholic and Protestant churches base their beliefs in God on the Nicene Creed. In 325 AD, hundreds of years after Jesus Christ lived on the Earth, there began to be arguments and debates on the nature of God. The final creed was voted on and agreed to by committees of "experts". Greek philosophy became the fad of the day, and although teachings and writings taught that Jesus Christ had lived on Earth, died, then was resurrected with a physical body, philosophy said it could not be true. Philosophy said that anything physical could be corrupted, and since God was incorruptible, He could not have a physical body. That is the basis for one of the teachings in the Nicene Creed. At Easter, we celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which was His return with a physical body. I'm not sure how many churches teach that He still has that resurrected body.

Greeks also had their beliefs in many Gods. As Christians attempted to convert them by saying there were not multiple Gods, Greeks could disagree by saying Christians had God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, as evidenced at Jesus' baptism when He spoke to His Father, and the Holy Ghost appeared in the sign of the dove. All three were present at the same time. Jesus prayed to His Father in Gethsemane as He suffered so greatly. On the cross, Jesus prayed to His Father. The committees debated ways to present all 3 individuals as one individual in different forms.

Emperor Constantine said Christianity could be the official religion of the empire, but only if all could come into agreement on what the doctrine was. He invited church leaders to the great Council of Nicea, where discussions and debates were held. Votes were taken, and the Nicene Creed was established.

Mormons believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that He lived on the Earth, died and was resurrected with a glorified body which He still has, and which will not be corrupted. We try to live by His teachings of love, goodness, kindness and obedience. It is a lifelong effort, and of course each person will make mistakes- sometimes many of them, but we consider ourselves Christians because we love, worship and follow Jesus Christ, our Savior and Redeemer. We believe differently than Catholics and Protestants, but I think we are all trying to follow Jesus Christ, which makes us Christians.

dlb98 - "hawk" stated that he/she was kicked out of the church. I would suspect bias and would hope that he/she gets counselling.

Jazzy...Franklin Graham? Really? The leaders of the Mormon church are not paid for their service to the church. Franklin Graham in handsomely paid for the "service" to his "church". If you don't think Mr. Graham doesn't have ulterior personal and financial motives to scare his minions away from learning about Mormonism, then you are truly lost. If you have legitimate questions about the Mormon faith, then ask them...but please refrain from using the Antichrist as an example of truth about the Mormon church.

Do all Baptists believe and act the same? No baptist I know and living in the South I know a few believe or act like the Westboro Baptist church. They all just shake their heads when that comes up and continue serving pancakes and offering you salvation between the meal and asking if you want coffee or pepsi with it. Most of the things people don't like about one religion or another are idiocies of man not beliefs of the churches. You are electing a man not a church. I am much more interested if when the winner takes the oath to protect and defend the constitution he means the one we have now not the one he wishes we had. And He means all 10 amendments of the bill of rights. Dems only seem to believe in the first and Repubs mostly seem to believe in the tenth and the NRA hasn't read anything but the second. Can we get a president who believes in all ten?

During a war between heaven and hell, some sided with Satan, others God. Then some chose not to fight or fought less than valiantly. The last group of people were cursed for their actions by being born black.

Have you actually ever talked to a Mormon?

Your facts are very wrong.

The only part you got right was that we believe there was a war in heaven (a war of words not swords)

And in that war people had the choice to either choose Gods plan or to choose satin's plan.

Those who choose Gods plan came down to earth and one's skin color has nothing to do with the amount of valiantly one gave in the fight.