Voting in the Deep South

[Novato]

Hi All:

I must admit to a degree of puzzlement over the results in the Southern portion of the USA regarding the GOP primaries held there. It seems fairly obvious that Mitt Romney will win the eventual nomination, however I find the exit poll results quite fascinating in regard to the 80% of voters who align themselves to EV Christianity.

Since I have been many times in the South, and still remain puzzled by their, seemingly uneducated or uninformed, response to many things, I suppose I should understand the weirdness of their voting trends.

Romney came in third to Santorum & Grinich mostly because of the 80% of EV voters.

To put it bluntly, the Ev’s voted for a Roman Catholic (considered a cult by most EV scholars) or a three time adulterer who suddenly became an EV a few years ago and has been accused by his own party members of corruption (which is why they will not endorse him)

For me it clarifies the nonsensical and unbiblical theories of EV Christianity, it is more clearly amplified by the words written by Nephi:


8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.
9 Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.
10 And the blood of the saints shall cry from the ground against them.
11 Yea, they have all gone out of the way; they have become corrupted.
12 Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up.
Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 28:8 - 12

I thank Almighty God that I have been blessed to accept the Truth of His Word, through the Book of Mormon, and through the words therein am able to discern, with the blessing of the Holy Ghost, the deceptions that satan puts forward as “truth or knowledge” to the children of God.

To all EV Christians, you are not lost to the Lord of Hosts, you are counted among the sheep. If not in this world, then the next, you will acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ for who He really is, and fall before Him in adoration of His achievement for all mankind and accept His Gift.

Novato

[Billyray]

I thank Almighty God that I have been blessed to accept the Truth of His Word, through the Book of Mormon, and through the words therein am able to discern, with the blessing of the Holy Ghost, the deceptions that satan puts forward as “truth or knowledge” to the children of God.

Novato

Novato if you were able to discern the truth it would be obvious that the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be. That is obvious to all except to those caught up in the lies and deception of Mormonism. People have been patient with you and have tried to explain things to you but you simply will not listen.

[Billyray]

Hi All:

I must admit to a degree of puzzlement over the results in the Southern portion of the USA regarding the GOP primaries held there. It seems fairly obvious that Mitt Romney will win the eventual nomination, however I find the exit poll results quite fascinating in regard to the 80% of voters who align themselves to EV Christianity.

Novato

EVs see Mormonism as a wolf in sheep's clothing, a religion pretending to be Christian when they are not. They promote false gods and a false gospel. There is nothing puzzling about this. Now you know and perhaps this will not puzzle you anymore.

[Apologette]

Hi All:

I must admit to a degree of puzzlement over the results in the Southern portion of the USA regarding the GOP primaries held there. It seems fairly obvious that Mitt Romney will win the eventual nomination, however I find the exit poll results quite fascinating in regard to the 80% of voters who align themselves to EV Christianity.

Since I have been many times in the South, and still remain puzzled by their, seemingly uneducated or uninformed, response to many things, I suppose I should understand the weirdness of their voting trends.

Romney came in third to Santorum & Grinich mostly because of the 80% of EV voters.

To put it bluntly, the Ev’s voted for a Roman Catholic (considered a cult by most EV scholars) or a three time adulterer who suddenly became an EV a few years ago and has been accused by his own party members of corruption (which is why they will not endorse him)

For me it clarifies the nonsensical and unbiblical theories of EV Christianity, it is more clearly amplified by the words written by Nephi:



I thank Almighty God that I have been blessed to accept the Truth of His Word, through the Book of Mormon, and through the words therein am able to discern, with the blessing of the Holy Ghost, the deceptions that satan puts forward as “truth or knowledge” to the children of God.

To all EV Christians, you are not lost to the Lord of Hosts, you are counted among the sheep. If not in this world, then the next, you will acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ for who He really is, and fall before Him in adoration of His achievement for all mankind and accept His Gift.

Novato

Let's see, you think people are undeducated and uninformed if they voted for Santorum or Gingrich instead of the obviously moderate, Romney? Why would that be? Gosh, could it be because Romney has supported abortion? Taken big govenment money for the SLC Olympics and then lectured Santorum about earmarks? Some people do see through the "carney" side of Romney (I had a deep southerner tell me that)!

Most of all, many people in the South actually go to Church (as opposed to the elitist Northeasterners - many of who are so "educated" and "informed" that they laugh at Christianity.) Perhaps they want a Christian to be elected President, and not a Mormon (Mormons are not Christians, see sticky above).

I'm glad to see that Southern voters stood by their principles and voted their conscience not their pocketbook. Romney put tons of money into these "deep southern" primaries. I think what we see here is that southerners can't be bought!

[RealFakeHair]

Hi All:

I must admit to a degree of puzzlement over the results in the Southern portion of the USA regarding the GOP primaries held there. It seems fairly obvious that Mitt Romney will win the eventual nomination, however I find the exit poll results quite fascinating in regard to the 80% of voters who align themselves to EV Christianity.

Since I have been many times in the South, and still remain puzzled by their, seemingly uneducated or uninformed, response to many things, I suppose I should understand the weirdness of their voting trends.

Romney came in third to Santorum & Grinich mostly because of the 80% of EV voters.

To put it bluntly, the Ev’s voted for a Roman Catholic (considered a cult by most EV scholars) or a three time adulterer who suddenly became an EV a few years ago and has been accused by his own party members of corruption (which is why they will not endorse him)

For me it clarifies the nonsensical and unbiblical theories of EV Christianity, it is more clearly amplified by the words written by Nephi:



I thank Almighty God that I have been blessed to accept the Truth of His Word, through the Book of Mormon, and through the words therein am able to discern, with the blessing of the Holy Ghost, the deceptions that satan puts forward as “truth or knowledge” to the children of God.

To all EV Christians, you are not lost to the Lord of Hosts, you are counted among the sheep. If not in this world, then the next, you will acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ for who He really is, and fall before Him in adoration of His achievement for all mankind and accept His Gift.

Novato

As an uneducated white male who has read the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon three times all ready. Yea, I'm dumb too, but who knows maybe one day it will all make sense to me. Not the Book of Mormon, but ya'll yankees. The first thing you do when you come south is to say, "let me tell you how we do it back north."
Now as far as voting for a Roman Catholic; it's like voting for the devil you know vs the one you don't. Don't forget, Catholic worship the same God as Christians in the South, and the only one who think's he is or will be a god beside Romney is Newt, and he is crazy.
Let's save the best for last, Santorum?
Santorum is a yankee, and a Catholic, but he is also a nerd, ever seen his highschool picture? The South voted for him because we like the underdog, the little man so to speak, and beside we just don't like Romney.

[jdjhere]

Novato said: "To all EV Christians, you are not lost to the Lord of Hosts, you are counted among the sheep. If not in this world, then the next, you will acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ for who He really is, and fall before Him in adoration of His achievement for all mankind and accept His Gift."

The above statement is TRUE, at least the first sentence. I have ALREADY fallen down at His feet in adoration and worship because of His FREE gift to me, accepted it (even though I dont deserve it) and ALREADY worship Him for who He REALLY is, my Savior, and "my Lord and my God!", as Thomas identified Him as, and doing so, fell at His feet and worshipped Him as well.

Novato said:" Since I have been many times in the South, and still remain puzzled by their, seemingly uneducated or uninformed, response to many things, I suppose I should understand the weirdness of their voting trends."


Garsh, I guess all us "Evangelical Christians" just aint as "bright" as you LDS when we vote. Next time I'll just pick the LDS guy, ok? So much for Democracy...

Wait though, what if I am a Democrat? Does that make me even "less bright?" I am curious- are there LDS who would actually vote for Santorum or Gingrich or Paul? Better yet..,. are there LDS Democrats and if so, HOW are THEY voting?? Just curious. If ALL LDS are Republicans and are ALL voting for Romney, THAT sounds a little "cult-like." If they vote for anyone ELSE though, MAN! THAT is either a vote for a guy that goes to the "W**** of Babylon" church or a guy that is just "no good."

[Apologette]

Novato said: "To all EV Christians, you are not lost to the Lord of Hosts, you are counted among the sheep. If not in this world, then the next, you will acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ for who He really is, and fall before Him in adoration of His achievement for all mankind and accept His Gift."

The above statement is TRUE, at least the first sentence. I have ALREADY fallen down at His feet in adoration and worship because of His FREE gift to me, accepted it (even though I dont deserve it) and ALREADY worship Him for who He REALLY is, my Savior, and "my Lord and my God!", as Thomas identified Him as, and doing so, fell at His feet and worshipped Him as well.

Novato said:" Since I have been many times in the South, and still remain puzzled by their, seemingly uneducated or uninformed, response to many things, I suppose I should understand the weirdness of their voting trends."


Garsh, I guess all us "Evangelical Christians" just aint as "bright" as you LDS when we vote. Next time I'll just pick the LDS guy, ok? So much for Democracy...

Wait though, what if I am a Democrat? Does that make me even "less bright?" I am curious- are there LDS who would actually vote for Santorum or Gingrich or Paul? Better yet..,. are there LDS Democrats and if so, HOW are THEY voting?? Just curious. If ALL LDS are Republicans and are ALL voting for Romney, THAT sounds a little "cult-like." If they vote for anyone ELSE though, MAN! THAT is either a vote for a guy that goes to the "W**** of Babylon" church or a guy that is just "no good."

One of the reasons Mormons were unwelcomed in both Missouri and Illinois, is because they block voted. They all marched in lockstep down to the voting booths and did what their leaders directed - "vote for this" or "vote for that." This is what led to the disputes between Mormons and "gentiles" as they like to call us.

In the case of this primary, Mormons in heavily Mormon areas all vote for Romeny. Not because he is a conservative (which Mormons claim to be), but because he is a Mormon, and from one of the elite early families (who also went to Mexico to circumvent the Manifesto).

Ultimately, Mormons believe that one of their elders or several of them, will save the Cons***ution; Mormons believe their priesthood will rule alongside Smith and Jesus during the Millenium. Mormon laws will be imposed. In Mormonism, the Kingdom of God is the Mormon Church.

Mormons vote (and work) for Romeny to fulfill Mormon prophecy, makes no difference if he is a rank liberal. As long as he's Mormon, nothing else matters. In states where they are a minority (Arizona, Wyoming, etc.), the Mormon block vote carries the day for Romney. However, Obama also has his "block" voters, and there are more of them than there are Mormons.

[Libby]

I doubt Harry Reid and other Democratic LDS (yes, there are quite a few) will be voting for Romney.

[Sir]

One of the reasons Mormons were unwelcomed in both Missouri and Illinois, is because they block voted. They all marched in lockstep down to the voting booths and did what their leaders directed - "vote for this" or "vote for that." This is what led to the disputes between Mormons and "gentiles" as they like to call us.

In the case of this primary, Mormons in heavily Mormon areas all vote for Romeny. Not because he is a conservative (which Mormons claim to be), but because he is a Mormon, and from one of the elite early families (who also went to Mexico to circumvent the Manifesto).

Ultimately, Mormons believe that one of their elders or several of them, will save the Cons***ution; Mormons believe their priesthood will rule alongside Smith and Jesus during the Millenium. Mormon laws will be imposed. In Mormonism, the Kingdom of God is the Mormon Church.

Mormons vote (and work) for Romeny to fulfill Mormon prophecy, makes no difference if he is a rank liberal. As long as he's Mormon, nothing else matters. In states where they are a minority (Arizona, Wyoming, etc.), the Mormon block vote carries the day for Romney. However, Obama also has his "block" voters, and there are more of them than there are Mormons.

Since most of us here also know you as Catherine Aurelia from CARM, it comes as no surprise that you would resort to your conspiritorial theories about politics, mormons, govt., who votes for who and why, etc...

...but that's all you have; conspiracy theories.

And Libby mentioned Harry Reid. Funny thing is that every time a hyper-critic like "Apologette" (Catherine Aurelia, Krusader, Carmella, and whatever other names she uses) invokes these conspiracy theories about the "evil Mormons taking over the country in lawmaking positions and ruling the country as a theocracy, are forced to ignore the fact that the highest ranking LDS lawmaker in the country is a left-wing liberal who tows the party-line, much of which is contrary to the LDS position and definitely contrary to the conspiracy theories the LDS-critics claim.

[Apologette]

Since most of us here also know you as Catherine Aurelia from CARM, it comes as no surprise that you would resort to your conspiritorial theories about politics, mormons, govt., who votes for who and why, etc...

...but that's all you have; conspiracy theories.

And Libby mentioned Harry Reid. Funny thing is that every time a hyper-critic like "Apologette" (Catherine Aurelia, Krusader, Carmella, and whatever other names she uses) invokes these conspiracy theories about the "evil Mormons taking over the country in lawmaking positions and ruling the country as a theocracy, are forced to ignore the fact that the highest ranking LDS lawmaker in the country is a left-wing liberal who tows the party-line, much of which is contrary to the LDS position and definitely contrary to the conspiracy theories the LDS-critics claim.

Is that the best you got - just nasty ad homs? Well, I guess I've come not to expect much more.

If you've ever read anything, even slick Mormon bios, you'll note that one of the main reasons that Mormons came under fire was their block voting. They still do it today - which is why Mormons here and elsewhere do not support a true conservative, like Santorum, but a moderate/liberal like Romney. Everybody can see it, even FOX News!

Anybody interested in the political agenda of Mormonism, is invited to go here:

http://www.janishutchinson.com/agenda.html

And lest we all forget, Joe Smith had himself crowned King. Then he ran for President. Then he destroyed the Nauvoo Expositor that dared speak out against his polygamy. Sorry, Sir, but this was no conspiracy, this was historical evidence of Smith's quest to dominate the world: "Joseph Smith or the Sword."

[Apologette]

I doubt Harry Reid and other Democratic LDS (yes, there are quite a few) will be voting for Romney.

Do you still believe in the Deity of Christ?

[Sir]

Is that the best you got - just nasty ad homs? Well, I guess I've come not to expect much more.

If you've ever read anything, even slick Mormon bios, you'll note that one of the main reasons that Mormons came under fire was their block voting. They still do it today - which is why Mormons here and elsewhere do not support a true conservative, like Santorum, but a moderate/liberal like Romney. Everybody can see it, even FOX News!

Anybody interested in the political agenda of Mormonism, is invited to go here:

http://www.janishutchinson.com/agenda.html

And lest we all forget, Joe Smith had himself crowned King. Then he ran for President. Then he destroyed the Nauvoo Expositor that dared speak out against his polygamy. Sorry, Sir, but this was no conspiracy, this was historical evidence of Smith's quest to dominate the world: "Joseph Smith or the Sword."

Really? Pointing out that you are all about conspiracy theories cons***utes "nasty ad hominems" in your view?

Well, okay. If you must be a victim, be a victim.

By the way, thank you for coming back here. I have recently claimed that without Mormons, these forums would eventually die. Critics need us. And I noticed the recent complaints at CARM that LDS are not responding to the attacks. And now here you are, trolling for some action. :)

EDIT: Oh....I see you have been banned from CARM. Now I see why you have returned here. See? Critics need us! They feed off of the argument. :)

[jdjhere]

Libby said: "I doubt Harry Reid and other Democratic LDS (yes, there are quite a few) will be voting for Romney."


You are correct Libby, He is going for the OTHER LDS (according to CNN)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/21/top-dem-picks-huntsman/

Top Dem picks Huntsman

Posted by CNN ***ociate Producer Gabriella Schwarz

Washington (CNN) – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ventured into the 2012presidential waiting game Tuesday, offering up his pick for the Republican presidential nomination.
"If I had a choice, I would favor Huntsman over Romney," Reid told reporters after a meeting on Capitol Hill. "But I don't have a choice in that race."

When asked if the country is ready for a Mormon president, the Nevada senator said they are not ready for Mitt Romney. Reid, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and Romney are all members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

CNN Again:
Kind of sad...

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-09/politics/obama.reid_1_john-heilemann-african-american-voters-senator-reid?_s=PM:POLITICS

Reid apologizes for racial remarks about Obama during campaign.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid apologized Sa****ay for making racially insensitive remarks about Barack Obama during the presidential campaign.
Journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann reported the remarks in their new book, "Game Change," which is scheduled to be in bookstores Tuesday.
The authors quote Reid as saying privately that Obama, as a black candidate, could be successful thanks, in part, to his "light-skinned" appearance and speaking patterns "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
"He [Reid] was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,' " Halperin and Heilemann say.

At least he didn't say Obama was "dark and loathsome."

1 Nephi 12:23 (Prophecy of Lamanites after Christ) ". . . became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations."

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/racialstatements.htm

Argue with CNN, not me.

[Libby]

Libby said: "I doubt Harry Reid and other Democratic LDS (yes, there are quite a few) will be voting for Romney."


You are correct Libby, He is going for the OTHER LDS (according to CNN)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/21/top-dem-picks-huntsman/

Top Dem picks Huntsman

Posted by CNN ***ociate Producer Gabriella Schwarz

Washington (CNN) – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ventured into the 2012presidential waiting game Tuesday, offering up his pick for the Republican presidential nomination.
"If I had a choice, I would favor Huntsman over Romney," Reid told reporters after a meeting on Capitol Hill. "But I don't have a choice in that race."

When asked if the country is ready for a Mormon president, the Nevada senator said they are not ready for Mitt Romney. Reid, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and Romney are all members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

CNN Again:
Kind of sad...

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-09/politics/obama.reid_1_john-heilemann-african-american-voters-senator-reid?_s=PM:POLITICS

Reid apologizes for racial remarks about Obama during campaign.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid apologized Sa****ay for making racially insensitive remarks about Barack Obama during the presidential campaign.
Journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann reported the remarks in their new book, "Game Change," which is scheduled to be in bookstores Tuesday.
The authors quote Reid as saying privately that Obama, as a black candidate, could be successful thanks, in part, to his "light-skinned" appearance and speaking patterns "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
"He [Reid] was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,' " Halperin and Heilemann say.

At least he didn't say Obama was "dark and loathsome."

1 Nephi 12:23 (Prophecy of Lamanites after Christ) ". . . became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations."

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/racialstatements.htm

Argue with CNN, not me.

Did you actually read that article? He said, if he had a choice in the GOP nomination he would choose Huntsman over Romney...but, he doesn't have a choice in that race. In other words, he is solidly Democrat and will be voting for Obama.



"If I had a choice, I would favor Huntsman over Romney," Reid told reporters after a meeting on Capitol Hill. "But I don't have a choice in that race."

[Apologette]

Did you actually read that article? He said, if he had a choice in the GOP nomination he would choose Huntsman over Romney...but, he doesn't have a choice in that race. In other words, he is solidly Democrat and will be voting for Obama.

One Mormon over another Mormon? Why not Santorum or Gingrich? Because they aren't Mormon? I'd say that's the reason.

I had a former Mormon friend who I led to Christ on her death bed (praise God!). She warned me about Romney, Hatch and Reed. She left the Republican party and registered as an independent due to the party's inclination to nominate ****tail moderates. Romney, Huntsman, Hatch, Reed, not exactly pillars of conseratism. And Reed is so despicable that one asks why the Mormon cult has supported somebody who is pro-abortion? Compromise for the sake of power, perhaps?

[jdjhere]

Libby- my point was what Apologette stated: "Why not Santorum or Gingrich?" (or Paul, for that matter?)

And yes, I DID read the whole article and it DOES say he doesn't have a choice right now. And we all know why- because he IS a Democrat (as you said), but I wonder what would happen if he DID have a choice? CAN HE vote Republican?? (this is actually a question for you, Libby). I thought what he said about Obama's skin color should NOT go unnoticed and that is why I included it. WHY even MAKE a comment of ANY kind like that?? Why not just say "He is a good candidate??" Since Reid is a Democrat he WILL vote his party and he only has ONE choice, and it happens to be a non-LDS black guy. Sorry, but after I posted the link above it just shows what the early LDS "prophets" taught and thought about the curse of Cain. It just makes me suspicious because of what happened in the early LDS church. I am NOT saying Harry Reid is prejudice, I am JUST saying he has ONE choice if he sticks with his party. Let the readers have their own opinions of Harry Reid AND of what the early LDS church taught about the mark of Cain. Here is the link again: http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/racialstatements.htm

[alanmolstad]

Santorum gets support from many Christians, as well as many Mormons , and many Catholics and other religions too because he is pro-life.

Its really on the social issues where Santorum has done well with religious people.

So I dont see this support for Santorum as being because of his Catholic faith....But rather the support for Santorum seems to be because of what his Catholic faith has caused him to speak out in support of...

namely the right to live for the youngest of us...

[Libby]

Libby- my point was what Apologette stated: "Why not Santorum or Gingrich?" (or Paul, for that matter?)

And yes, I DID read the whole article and it DOES say he doesn't have a choice right now. And we all know why- because he IS a Democrat (as you said), but I wonder what would happen if he DID have a choice? CAN HE vote Republican?? (this is actually a question for you, Libby). I thought what he said about Obama's skin color should NOT go unnoticed and that is why I included it. WHY even MAKE a comment of ANY kind like that?? Why not just say "He is a good candidate??" Since Reid is a Democrat he WILL vote his party and he only has ONE choice, and it happens to be a non-LDS black guy. Sorry, but after I posted the link above it just shows what the early LDS "prophets" taught and thought about the curse of Cain. It just makes me suspicious because of what happened in the early LDS church. I am NOT saying Harry Reid is prejudice, I am JUST saying he has ONE choice if he sticks with his party. Let the readers have their own opinions of Harry Reid AND of what the early LDS church taught about the mark of Cain. Here is the link again: http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/racialstatements.htm

Jd, of course, he has a choice. We always have a choice, when we enter the voting booth, alone. No one is going to know how we vote, so we can vote for whomever we want.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. If Harry Reid really WANTED TO vote for a Mormon, he most certainly could (and would, I have no doubt)...in the National election, if there is a Mormon running, which it looks like there will be.

[Apologette]

Santorum gets support from many Christians, as well as many Mormons , and many Catholics and other religions too because he is pro-life.

Its really on the social issues where Santorum has done well with religious people.

So I dont see this support for Santorum as being because of his Catholic faith....But rather the support for Santorum seems to be because of what his Catholic faith has caused him to speak out in support of...

namely the right to live for the youngest of us...

Obviously it's not for his (Santorum's) Catholic faith, but because of his stand on moral issues and conservative principles. Romney is a "carney," as a southerner I know called him - his pitch is selling himself - whatever you want to hear. In Santorum's case, Evangeicals have endorsed him, so it's not due to his Catholic religion that he has their support.

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE=Apologette;116883]One of the reasons Mormons were unwelcomed in both Missouri and Illinois, is because they block voted. They all marched in lockstep down to the voting booths and did what their leaders directed - "vote for this" or "vote for that." This is what led to the disputes between Mormons and "gentiles" as they like to call us. First Mormons do not block vote. Our leaders do not tell us who to vote for. But I did see a bunch of pastors get together and vote on who EV's should vote for. They picked Santorum (I think without vetting him even.) They stated they would use their influence through "christian radio" etc. to get the EV's to vote for him. Then I saw the weirdest thing I have ever seen on T.V. surrounding politics. Rick Santorum walked in amoung a bunch of pastors and they all put their hands on him and it appears, that they started praying. Good luck ever finding a group of Mormons ever doing that. We don't put faith in a single man or politician, we put it in Christ. sheesh.

[RealFakeHair]

[QUOTE] First Mormons do not block vote. Our leaders do not tell us who to vote for. But I did see a bunch of pastors get together and vote on who EV's should vote for. They picked Santorum (I think without vetting him even.) They stated they would use their influence through "christian radio" etc. to get the EV's to vote for him. Then I saw the weirdest thing I have ever seen on T.V. surrounding politics. Rick Santorum walked in amoung a bunch of pastors and they all put their hands on him and it appears, that they started praying. Good luck ever finding a group of Mormons ever doing that. We don't put faith in a single man or politician, we put it in Christ. sheesh.

Not to point fingers, but I wish every good EV and mormon blocked voted for me, I make a good politician, I would do nothing, I'd stay home and cash the check, there are to many laws anyways.
Now back to the point, yes sometimes I do get to the point.
I don't doubt you put your faith in a christ. I think the last christ I knew of was the REV. Sun Myung Moon, is he still kickin?
Anyways, I don't think that is the christ you put your faith in, but I could be wrong, but I've never have been.

[BigJulie]

Not to point fingers, but I wish every good EV and mormon blocked voted for me, I make a good politician, I would do nothing, I'd stay home and cash the check, there are to many laws anyways.
Now back to the point, yes sometimes I do get to the point.
I don't doubt you put your faith in a christ. I think the last christ I knew of was the REV. Sun Myung Moon, is he still kickin?
Anyways, I don't think that is the christ you put your faith in, but I could be wrong, but I've never have been.

What?? You think Sun Myung was "christ"---strange. What do you think about a bunch of pastors getting together to pray over Santorum. That was strange to me too. I wonder if they think he is a "christ" to them?

[RealFakeHair]

[QUOTE=RealFakeHair;116985]

What?? You think Sun Myung was "christ"---strange. What do you think about a bunch of pastors getting together to pray over Santorum. That was strange to me too. I wonder if they think he is a "christ" to them?

He would be a nerd christ:eek:

[BigJulie]

He would be a nerd christ:eek:

I don't see him saving anything...let alone me any taxes or a ***.

[alanmolstad]

Obviously it's not for his (Santorum's) Catholic faith, but because of his stand on moral issues and conservative principles. Romney is a "carney," ......

You know...the term "Carney" might be the most correct term to describe how a lot of Republicans think about Mitt.

Im sure we all still will support him against Obama....but we still view him as a bit of a huckster....

[Apologette]

[QUOTE=BigJulie;116987]

He would be a nerd christ:eek:

No, Moon is a false Christ, and those who preach his gospel come under the Gal. 1:8 curse.

[BigJulie]

No, Moon is a false Christ, and those who preach his gospel come under the Gal. 1:8 curse.

Apollogette---it was RealFakeHair who made this comment, not me. Will you please edit your post so it shows correctly. Thank you.

[alanmolstad]

so Julie, a big fan of the Rev Moon I hear talk of now?...LOL

[BigJulie]

so Julie, a big fan of the Rev Moon I hear talk of now?...LOL

Never listened to him. I have heard more about him on this site than anywhere. :eek:

[alanmolstad]

Never listened to .....

One of the things I have found true lately around here......"It's not the same as real life"



On the computer screen Im sure everyone strikes each other as a bit 'off plumb'...

But in real life I have no doubt that even Billy knows how to pick a great wine for dinner.....

[jdjhere]

Libby said: "I doubt Harry Reid and other Democratic LDS (yes, there are quite a few) will be voting for Romney."

You are correct Libby. If he was going to vote Republican, he would have voted for Huntsman (the OTHER LDS) over Romney, but Huntsman is OUT now.

CNN article: ""If I had a choice, I would favor Huntsman over Romney," Reid told reporters after a meeting on Capitol Hill. "But I don't have a choice in that race."

Libby said: "Jd, of course, he has a choice. We always have a choice.."

Not according to Reid. "But I don't have a choice in that race." Why would he say that? Is he being pressured by Democrats to vote his own party or is it just the "right" thing to do, to vote within your party?

Libby Said "In other words, he is solidly Democrat and will be voting for Obama."
Libby said: "Jd, of course, he has a choice. We always have a choice, when we enter the voting booth, alone. No one is going to know how we vote, so we can vote for whomever we want. If Harry Reid really WANTED TO vote for a Mormon, he most certainly could (and would, I have no doubt)...in the National election, if there is a Mormon running, which it looks like there will be."
So, we really don't KNOW how Reid will vote while in the booth... correct?

[Libby]

Jd, this conversation is getting very convoluted.

My only point was that not all Mormons will vote for Romney just because he is a Mormon. I saw a breakdown of political parties within the LDS Church and about a third are Democrat, and a good percentage are Independent voters, including some of the Apostles and Seventies.

[BigJulie]

Jdhere, I think Reid said that because as a democrat Senator, he does not vote in the GOP primaries---not because anyone is forcing him to do anything. Good grief. My word, you guys will believe just about anything if you can put a negative spin to it.

[alanmolstad]

Jd, this conversation is getting very convoluted.

.....Amen sister....Im going to need a flow-chart to this conversation soon

[Radix]

Hi All:

I must admit to a degree of puzzlement over the results in the Southern portion of the USA regarding the GOP primaries held there. It seems fairly obvious that Mitt Romney will win the eventual nomination, however I find the exit poll results quite fascinating in regard to the 80% of voters who align themselves to EV Christianity.

Since I have been many times in the South, and still remain puzzled by their, seemingly uneducated or uninformed, response to many things, I suppose I should understand the weirdness of their voting trends.

I realize that I myself am not a god in training, but this Southerner does not appreciate your caricature of me being uneducated and uninformed. Along with a college degree I have 7 years post graduate training. It is not a ***le I thrive on, but just about every day there are several people who call me Dr. Sadly, we "uneducated and uninformed" Southerners were way ahead of the Mormon god when it comes to civil rights. I doubt you would move here, but realize we would welcome you to a much greater degree than you would ever welcome us. I guess us "uneducated and uniformed" folks just don't know any better.


Romney came in third to Santorum & Grinich mostly because of the 80% of EV voters.

To put it bluntly, the Ev’s voted for a Roman Catholic (considered a cult by most EV scholars) or a three time adulterer who suddenly became an EV a few years ago and has been accused by his own party members of corruption (which is why they will not endorse him)

So? Is the only issue who has the best morals? Jesus said if we think of adultery, it is just as bad as doing it. Wonder if Romney has been deciding who else is going to be his wife "in the kingdom." You and your super god like thinking probably believes Romney has never had a bad thought in his life. As long as Jesus is not running for President, we will never have someone moral enough to earn the position.


For me it clarifies the nonsensical and unbiblical theories of EV Christianity, it is more clearly amplified by the words written by Nephi:

Sorry, since I am not a god in training, I could care less.


I thank Almighty God that I have been blessed to accept the Truth of His Word, through the Book of Mormon, and through the words therein am able to discern, with the blessing of the Holy Ghost, the deceptions that satan puts forward as “truth or knowledge” to the children of God.

You forgot to thank God your not an "uneducated or uninformed" Southerner.


To all EV Christians, you are not lost to the Lord of Hosts, you are counted among the sheep. If not in this world, then the next, you will acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ for who He really is, and fall before Him in adoration of His achievement for all mankind and accept His Gift.

Novato

Oh gee thanks Novato, I'm just "uneducated and uniformed."

This "uneducated and uninformed" Southerner will never acknowledge the spirit brother of Satan. I guess that is only for you super smart gods in training.

[Russianwolfe]

Sadly, we "uneducated and uninformed" Southerners were way ahead of the Mormon god when it comes to civil rights.

Yeah, the only reason you "Southerners" stopped lynching the blacks was because you could be prosecuted and convicted. The lynching of black men was such a problem that Billy Holiday had a song about it called Strange Fruit. Listen to that some time and tell me it doesn't impact you emotionally.

The problem was still so prevalent in the 60s that Dr. King mentioned it in one of his famous speeches.

Yeah, you were ahead of us. When the KKK attempted to recruit Mormons in Utah, they failed completely and totally to establish any branches.

Right!

Marvin

[Radix]

Yeah, the only reason you "Southerners" stopped lynching the blacks was because you could be prosecuted and convicted. The lynching of black men was such a problem that Billy Holiday had a song about it called Strange Fruit. Listen to that some time and tell me it doesn't impact you emotionally.

The problem was still so prevalent in the 60s that Dr. King mentioned it in one of his famous speeches.

Yeah, you were ahead of us. When the KKK attempted to recruit Mormons in Utah, they failed completely and totally to establish any branches.

Right!

Marvin

Horrible things did happen here, but to think this was only isolated in the South is only wishful thinking. We Southerners can admit that lynchings were wrong and horrible. While things will never be perfect, in the South we have faced up to it more than most. Our leaders were wrong, how about your's Marvin, were they wrong when they taught black skin was a curse from God? If you cannot admit they were wrong, it shows just how far you need to come.

[BigJulie]

Horrible things did happen here, but to think this was only isolated in the South is only wishful thinking. We Southerners can admit that lynchings were wrong and horrible. While things will never be perfect, in the South we have faced up to it more than most. Our leaders were wrong, how about your's Marvin, were they wrong when they taught black skin was a curse from God? If you cannot admit they were wrong, it shows just how far you need to come.

Is that what they did with Emmett Till? Let's see--that was 1955. Do also realize that in the South, more than 50% do not graduate from public high school and most white's still send their kids to private schools. I'm trying to reconcile that with your "facing up" statements.

Okay, so explain to me exactly why someone with all of your education would vote for Santorum. I thought he was a possibility until I looked at his voting record, how he made his money after he lost, how he mismanaged his own money, saw how he didn't manage his own campaign, and until they press started really talking with him and he started saying things like the official language of Peuto Rico should be English. So, explain to me, how someone as educated as you could say, yeah, he's the man.

[alanmolstad]

.....why someone with all of your education would vote for Santorum. .....

Right now because of the support that Rick gets from the Republican base conservatives, there is about a 50/50 chance that Mitt will pick him as his VP...

If he does pick Rick what will this mean?

well....
It will be interesting to watch how all the bile that drips from the mouths of some Mitt supporters at their hearing of Rick's name, will suddenly get sucked back in if Rick ends up standing next to Mitt at the convention......

My own view is that Mitt lost the support of the conservatives with his flip-flops in the past that took away the ability to take his word serious by so many of his own Party.


Mitt does not have an image of being an untrustable flip-flopper with the Dems..
(The Dems actually like that about Mitt)

It's only within his own party that this issue comes up all the time and never goes away...


Thus Mitt is going to have to place a foundation of trust underneath himself and the Conservatives by picking someone for his VP that time and time again the pro-Life conservatives have shown they prefer over Mitt every time....

[Apologette]

Is that what they did with Emmett Till? Let's see--that was 1955. Do also realize that in the South, more than 50% do not graduate from public high school and most white's still send their kids to private schools. I'm trying to reconcile that with your "facing up" statements.

Okay, so explain to me exactly why someone with all of your education would vote for Santorum. I thought he was a possibility until I looked at his voting record, how he made his money after he lost, how he mismanaged his own money, saw how he didn't manage his own campaign, and until they press started really talking with him and he started saying things like the official language of Peuto Rico should be English. So, explain to me, how someone as educated as you could say, yeah, he's the man.

It wasn't until 1978 that your genius leaders decided that it wasn't good for BYU's football team to keep teaching that blacks were unworthy of the priesthood and that their skin was a sign of a curse by Mormon-god. What happened - Mormon god didn't get the "civil rights" bug on Kolob until 1978, and then decided to change his own nefarious policy?

[theway]

It wasn't until 1978 that your genius leaders decided that it wasn't good for BYU's football team to keep teaching that blacks were unworthy of the priesthood and that their skin was a sign of a curse by Mormon-god. What happened - Mormon god didn't get the "civil rights" bug on Kolob until 1978, and then decided to change his own nefarious policy?
There you go again, trying to argue both sides.
First you guys tell us that the Church was forced to change because of the Civil Rights movement (1955-1968).
Now you are saying that the Church wasn't influenced by, "the civil rights bug" and didn't change until way latter, (1978)

I don't mind if you criticize me, just be consistent about it.


By the way, God does not live on Kolob... it appears you've been getting your information from Anti-Mormon sites again.

[Russianwolfe]

Horrible things did happen here, but to think this was only isolated in the South is only wishful thinking. We Southerners can admit that lynchings were wrong and horrible. While things will never be perfect, in the South we have faced up to it more than most. Our leaders were wrong, how about your's Marvin, were they wrong when they taught black skin was a curse from God? If you cannot admit they were wrong, it shows just how far you need to come.

Nothing you have said about what I believe is considered doctrine. It was never taught as doctrine so there is nothing to step away from. I have heard of these things being taught but not by any authority and definitely not as doctrine.

Marvin

[BigJulie]

It wasn't until 1978 that your genius leaders decided that it wasn't good for BYU's football team to keep teaching that blacks were unworthy of the priesthood and that their skin was a sign of a curse by Mormon-god. What happened - Mormon god didn't get the "civil rights" bug on Kolob until 1978, and then decided to change his own nefarious policy?

Your comment just shows your complete lack of understanding of how the policy came regarding blacks, Joseph Smith's own history, or the history since then. My husband is part black and so I know this history very well. Your comment is nothing but negativity and smear.

[BigJulie]

Horrible things did happen here, but to think this was only isolated in the South is only wishful thinking. We Southerners can admit that lynchings were wrong and horrible. While things will never be perfect, in the South we have faced up to it more than most. Our leaders were wrong, how about your's Marvin, were they wrong when they taught black skin was a curse from God? If you cannot admit they were wrong, it shows just how far you need to come.

Look up the history on this. You have a graduate degree. This comment just shows that your understanding of this lacks any real research.

[BigJulie]

Right now because of the support that Rick gets from the Republican base conservatives, there is about a 50/50 chance that Mitt will pick him as his VP...

If he does pick Rick what will this mean?

well....
It will be interesting to watch how all the bile that drips from the mouths of some Mitt supporters at their hearing of Rick's name, will suddenly get sucked back in if Rick ends up standing next to Mitt at the convention......

My own view is that Mitt lost the support of the conservatives with his flip-flops in the past that took away the ability to take his word serious by so many of his own Party.


Mitt does not have an image of being an untrustable flip-flopper with the Dems..
(The Dems actually like that about Mitt)

It's only within his own party that this issue comes up all the time and never goes away...


Thus Mitt is going to have to place a foundation of trust underneath himself and the Conservatives by picking someone for his VP that time and time again the pro-Life conservatives have shown they prefer over Mitt every time....

See---for me this speaks more to Mitt being an unknown because of his religion. If he was an EV and said that he changed, people wouldn't question it.

So, for me, I just see EV's going for a religion they trust versus looking at a person's real voting record regarding what they say.

Rick said that he went against his core values to vote for the team and yet he is still trusted.

Mitt said he changed his values (around abortion) and voted that way even when in M***. and yet, he is not trusted. How else can you explain that other than people do not trust what they do not know personally?

[Radix]

Is that what they did with Emmett Till? Let's see--that was 1955. Do also realize that in the South, more than 50% do not graduate from public high school and most white's still send their kids to private schools. I'm trying to reconcile that with your "facing up" statements.

Okay, so explain to me exactly why someone with all of your education would vote for Santorum. I thought he was a possibility until I looked at his voting record, how he made his money after he lost, how he mismanaged his own money, saw how he didn't manage his own campaign, and until they press started really talking with him and he started saying things like the official language of Peuto Rico should be English. So, explain to me, how someone as educated as you could say, yeah, he's the man.

Personally, I was not alive when anything happened to Emmett Till. If people do not graduate from High School, that is not my fault. The high school I went too, there was about 35% African American students. My senior cl*** was over 700 students. So in my senior High School cl***, there were probably more black students than there were in most cities in Utah.

My first medical practice I was the only white physician in the group, I had 5 black partners. I was jokingly referred to as the "token white" in the group. Now that I think about it, I probably had more black partners than most Utah cities had black people.

And who said I voted for Santorum? You must have gleaned that with your god in training omniscience. Sorry, your not a god yet, have a long way to go.

[BigJulie]

Personally, I was not alive when anything happened to Emmett Till. If people do not graduate from High School, that is not my fault. The high school I went too, there was about 35% African American students. My senior cl*** was over 700 students. So in my senior High School cl***, there were probably more black students than there were in most cities in Utah.

My first medical practice I was the only white physician in the group, I had 5 black partners. I was jokingly referred to as the "token white" in the group. Now that I think about it, I probably had more black partners than most Utah cities had black people.

And who said I voted for Santorum? You must have gleaned that with your god in training omniscience. Sorry, your not a god yet, have a long way to go.

Wait, so--your answer to the question about voting in the deep south was that "I realize that I myself am not a god in training, but this Southerner does not appreciate your caricature of me being uneducated and uninformed."

And now you go on about being schooled in Utah? How do you see yourself as a "Southerner" then? Did you go to medical school in the south and this makes you a "southerner"?

[Radix]

Wait, so--your answer to the question about voting in the deep south was that "I realize that I myself am not a god in training, but this Southerner does not appreciate your caricature of me being uneducated and uninformed."

And now you go on about being schooled in Utah? How do you see yourself as a "Southerner" then? Did you go to medical school in the south and this makes you a "southerner"?

I never said anything about living anywhere but the South. Just so you know, there are plenty of good Medical schools in the South. Again, your god in training omniscience continues to be lacking.

[Radix]

Nothing you have said about what I believe is considered doctrine. It was never taught as doctrine so there is nothing to step away from. I have heard of these things being taught but not by any authority and definitely not as doctrine.

Marvin

Gee Masta Marvin. Just then why were people of color prevented from going to the White and glorious temple before 1978? Was it doctrine or just plain bigotry?

[Radix]

Look up the history on this. You have a graduate degree. This comment just shows that your understanding of this lacks any real research.

Here is some research for you. The actions of banning blacks from the temples before 1978 speaks volumes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJwlnx_HbX8&feature=related

It is a brief video, but could easily be much longer.

[Russianwolfe]

Gee Masta Marvin. Just then why were people of color prevented from going to the White and glorious temple before 1978? Was it doctrine or just plain bigotry?

I know for a fact that blacks did go to the temple to perform baptisms for the dead. And another prejudicial bias bites the dust.

Tell me, why were the Levites the only ones who could hold the priesthood and perform the rites in the temple? One out of twelve!!! Was that doctrine or bigotry or both? And don't cite any scripture unless it says why. Most of the scriptures people toss at me in reply to this question do not say why.

If God did it before, why are you so surprised when he does it again?

Marvin

[Russianwolfe]

Here is some research for you. The actions of banning blacks from the temples before 1978 speaks volumes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJwlnx_HbX8&feature=related

It is a brief video, but could easily be much longer.

How is banning blacks from the temples any worse than banning blacks from white churches? And you still have to explain why blacks joined the church before 1978. And why there were so many blacks in Africa that wanted desperately to join and even incorporated the church before the church even sent missionaries. LDS Church in Black Africa (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuTF0jiH16Q&feature=player_detailpage) is the video that you should watch. It didn't bother them, so why should it bother a white guy like you? Nobody was forcing them join the church. Before my mission in 1973, I met and purchased a book by a black man named Alan Cherry. It told the story of his conversion. Maybe you need to go to that very informative website Black LDS Mormon (http://www.blacklds.org/)

LDS churches have never been segregated and blacks held positions in the church, such as Sunday school president and others.

Marvin

[Radix]

How is banning blacks from the temples any worse than banning blacks from white churches? And you still have to explain why blacks joined the church before 1978. And why there were so many blacks in Africa that wanted desperately to join and even incorporated the church before the church even sent missionaries. LDS Church in Black Africa (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuTF0jiH16Q&feature=player_detailpage) is the video that you should watch. It didn't bother them, so why should it bother a white guy like you? Nobody was forcing them join the church. Before my mission in 1973, I met and purchased a book by a black man named Alan Cherry. It told the story of his conversion. Maybe you need to go to that very informative website Black LDS Mormon (http://www.blacklds.org/)

LDS churches have never been segregated and blacks held positions in the church, such as Sunday school president and others.

Marvin

Welcome Mister Cherry, (in 1973), just don't expect to come to the big house. It is not meant for you dark skin folks.

Any church that banned blacks, anywhere in the USA, was WRONG.

How about you guys Marvin, where your leaders wrong to ban black members of your church from the temple? For some reason, you guys never seem to want to answer that question.

[Radix]

I know for a fact that blacks did go to the temple to perform baptisms for the dead. And another prejudicial bias bites the dust.

Tell me, why were the Levites the only ones who could hold the priesthood and perform the rites in the temple? One out of twelve!!! Was that doctrine or bigotry or both? And don't cite any scripture unless it says why. Most of the scriptures people toss at me in reply to this question do not say why.

If God did it before, why are you so surprised when he does it again?

Marvin

That is a new one to me (about blacks being allowed to baptize for the dead before 1978.) How about holding the priesthood Marvin, what prevented that?

When it comes to the Levites, that was their duty. It did not make them any more godly than anyone in the other tribes. The Old Testament priesthood has nothing to do with the current day Mormon concept.

[BigJulie]

Here is some research for you. The actions of banning blacks from the temples before 1978 speaks volumes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJwlnx_HbX8&feature=related

It is a brief video, but could easily be much longer.

Okay Mister Graduate---you do your research on youtube? Wow, I am sure this is a reliable source. NOT!

[BigJulie]

Welcome Mister Cherry, (in 1973), just don't expect to come to the big house. It is not meant for you dark skin folks.

Any church that banned blacks, anywhere in the USA, was WRONG.

How about you guys Marvin, where your leaders wrong to ban black members of your church from the temple? For some reason, you guys never seem to want to answer that question.

Do your research Radix--it is apparent that you do not know what church leaders have said about this subject, publically even. You say you have a graduate degree---let's see if you can find anything that is actually worthy of some real research.

[BigJulie]

Does anyone here know who Elijah Abel was?

[Billyray]

Do your research Radix--it is apparent that you do not know what church leaders have said about this subject, publically even.
Brigham Young
"You see some cl***es of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race -- that they should be the "servants of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 290, 1859)

http://brighamyoungquotes.com/?s=blacks

[Billyray]

Does anyone here know who Elijah Abel was?

Yep sure do.

[jdjhere]

Was gone all weekend, So, sorry Libby, you are correct. I was getting off subject and I apologize. I guess I was just trying to make the point that NO ONE knows who someone is actually going to vote for until they are in the booth, thats all. Even then you still don't know. I guess I just think that "like" belief systems will vote for "like" belief systems, but I guess that is not always true. Thanks for the input, BigJulie. Dont want any actual arguements here, just discussions.

[jdjhere]

BigJulie- I just read about Elijah Abel in Wikipedia because I did not know who he was. Is that a fairly accurate betrayal of him and his life? Its pretty short.

[BigJulie]

BigJulie- I just read about Elijah Abel in Wikipedia because I did not know who he was. Is that a fairly accurate betrayal of him and his life? Its pretty short.

jdhere--the point of giving you Elijah Abel's name is to show that most people are completely unaware of the total history of blacks in the LDS church or what has been said by various leaders. What I tend to see instead are comments by critics that show that the research done is often the Walter Martin type--short, inaccurate, slanted, and biased to sensationalize The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) rather than complete and truthful.

[alanmolstad]

ummm...I dont really like the tone of this conversation.....nor where it seems to be headed....

We are at a site dedicated and named after Walter Martin....we are guests at this table....

[jdjhere]

OK BigJulie. I see what you are saying but I really dont see how many of the things said by LDS leadership in the past can be reconciled to anything of good tidings towards the black race of people in the early LDS church. I have to honestly say that I have seen LDS in these chat rooms TRY but its actually very embar***ing the things they say and the way they try to change what their leaders and prophets have said in the past. I would absolutely love to see an LDS start a thread about this (there probably already IS one) and let Evangelicals post ALL the BOM things said about the curse of cain and the like. I really do not see any way around some type of racism from looking at all these verses, even if they are not "official" church doctrine. When someone is a prophet of God (or a very influential leader for that matter) and they SAY something, then while they are speaking I would NOT think God was lying through them, or confused. What they say should ALWAYS be the Truth, or it is NOT God speaking THROUGH them but just another opinion. And if it is just OPINION, how do we know everything else they said is not just opinion as well and could be wrong? I have big issues and troubles with "cover ups" or trying to say the clear meanings of something someone said is misundertood, not the teachings of the church "today", or just that persons opinion. This leaves nothing but a foundation of sand for these prophets or leaders, constantly washing away and being repiled up with something else, only to be washed away again. Does that make sense?

And I agree with AlanMolstad's comment to you after you said: "What I tend to see instead are comments by critics that show that the research done is often the Walter Martin type--short, inaccurate, slanted, and biased to sensationalize The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) rather than complete and truthful."

I disagree BigJulie, but you are en***led to your opinion. My first felt reaction would also be to say bad things about him if he exposed things about my belief system that he strongly believed were in error. Remember too that LDS teachers and prophets of the past have "invited" people to do so. So, why is this wrong? And tell me, why are you here in this room? To do.. what?

[Radix]

Does anyone here know who Elijah Abel was?

Elijah Abel and Walker Lewis got in before Brigham closed the door. Abel got in by way of Joseph Smith, Lewis got in by way of William Smith. A few of Elijah's descendants were allowed as well.

But this brings up a big point here, were there no blacks considered worthy on their own btwn these two and 1978? Can you tell us exactly what changed in 1978 BigJulie? Your acting as if black skin was never considered a problem in the Mormon church.

[Radix]

Okay Mister Graduate---you do your research on youtube? Wow, I am sure this is a reliable source. NOT!

Your inability to deal with the references is noted BigJulie. One day, maybe you will be Big enough to deal with it.

[Radix]

It seems that Novato likes to come in, call people who do not vote like him/her self "uneducated" and then run and hide.

[jdjhere]

BigJulie stated: "What do you think about a bunch of pastors getting together to pray over Santorum. That was strange to me too. I wonder if they think he is a "christ" to them?"

I seriously don't understand why you think this is strange, BigJulie? Praying for somebody? And why would you wonder if they think he is a "Christ" to them? Evangelicals know that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah and that there is only one. I find THAT kind of a strange statement! Could you explain what you meant by them thinking Santorum was a "Christ??" Thanks.

[jdjhere]

Following is the text of Elijah Abel’s Patriarchal Blessing, pronounced by Joseph Smith, Sr., circa 1836:
[Patriarchal] Blessing of Elijah Able who was born in Frederick County, Maryland, July 25th 1808.

"Brother Able, in the name of Jesus Christ I lay my hands upon thy head to bless thee and thou shalt be blessed even forever. I seal upon thee a father’s blessing, because thou art an orphan, for thy father, hath never done his duty toward thee, but the Lord hast had his eye upon thee, and brought thee through straits and thou hast come to be rec[k]oned with the saints of the most High. Thou hast been ordained an Elder and anointed to secure thee against the power of the destroyer. Thou shalt see his power in laying waste the nations, & the wicked slaying the wicked, while blood shall run down the streets like water, and thy heart shall weep over their calamities. Angels shall visit thee and thou shalt receive comfort. They shall call thee blessed and deliver thee from thine enemies. They shall break thy bands and keep thee from afflictions. Thy name is written in the Lamb’s book of life.
Thou shalt travel in the East and visit foreign countries, speak in all various tongues, and thou shalt be able to teach different languages. Thou shall see visions of this world and other worlds and comprehend the laws of all kingdoms, and confound the wisdom of this generation. Thy life shall be preserved to a good old age. Thou must seek first the kingdom of heaven and all blessings shall be added thereunto. Thou shalt be made equal to thy brethren and thy soul be white in eternity and thy robes glittering: thou shalt receive these blessings because of the covenants of thy fathers. Thou shalt save thousands, do much good, and receive all the power that thou needest to accomplish thy mission. These and all the blessings which thou canst desire in righteousness, I seal upon thee, in the name of Jesus, Amen."
W.A. Cowdery ***ist. Recorder

Though Elijah spent his life serving in the LDS Church, he had one desire which was denied him in this life. According to A Book of Mormons,

“Abel had received washings and anoitings in the Kirtland Temple in 1836, before the complete endowment ceremonies had been established. Though he acted as proxy in baptisms for the dead in Nauvoo and Salt Lake City, Brigham Young denied his request to be sealed to his wife and family [8 children]: that was a ‘privilege’ he ‘could not grant,’ a decision later reaffirmed by President John Taylor.” (Richard S. Van Wagoner and Stephen C. Walker, 4)

As race relations in the Church continued to deteriorate over time, LDS Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith even attempted to deny that Elijah Abel had ever been a priesthood holder. Responding to a private inquiry, Mr. Smith claimed Church historian Andrew Jensen had gotten it wrong when he put Elijah’s ordination to the priesthood in the Latter-day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia. Mr. Smith suggested that there were two men named Elijah Abel; the historian had confused the “names and the work done by one man named Abel … with the name of the Negro who joined the Church in an early day.” (Joseph Fielding Smith to Mrs. Floren S. Preece, 18 Jan. 1955, S. George Ellsworth Papers, Utah State University, Logan)

A few years later Joseph Fielding Smith changed his position, writing in another private letter,
“According to the doctrine of the church, the Negro, because of some condition of unfaithfulness in the spirit—or pre-existence, was not valiant and hence was not denied the mortal probation, but was denied the blessing of the Priesthood. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints he has the privilege of baptism, confirmation and membership along with everyone else, as far as this life is concerned.
“…It is true that elders of the church laid hands on a Negro and blessed him ‘apparently’ with the Priesthood, but they could not give that which the Lord had denied. It is true that Elijah Abel was so ‘ordained.’ This was however before the matter had been submitted to the Prophet Joseph Smith. …It was afterwards that the Prophet Joseph Smith declared that the Negro was not to be ordained.” (Letter from Joseph Fielding Smith to Joseph H. Henderson, April 10, 1963)

I don't understand this. I was reading about Elijah Abel to learn more about him but I don't understand something- Joseph Smith Sr (Joseph's Father) pronounced that Elijah Abel DID receive the priesthood here or not? Maybe I am reading it incorrectly? Then Joseph Smith Jr said No, after it had already been confirmed on him? Could an LDS explain this to me? Thanks.

[BigJulie]

BigJulie stated: "What do you think about a bunch of pastors getting together to pray over Santorum. That was strange to me too. I wonder if they think he is a "christ" to them?"

I seriously don't understand why you think this is strange, BigJulie? Praying for somebody? And why would you wonder if they think he is a "Christ" to them? Evangelicals know that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah and that there is only one. I find THAT kind of a strange statement! Could you explain what you meant by them thinking Santorum was a "Christ??" Thanks.

I only made my comment to compare the comments before regarding others who the poster deemed "a christ."

I do not think it is strange at all to pray over someone. I do think it is strange for a group of pastors to do this for a political candidate though. I don't remember Christ endorsing anyone politically while on earth. ;)

[BigJulie]

I don't understand this. I was reading about Elijah Abel to learn more about him but I don't understand something- Joseph Smith Sr (Joseph's Father) pronounced that Elijah Abel DID receive the priesthood here or not? Maybe I am reading it incorrectly? Then Joseph Smith Jr said No, after it had already been confirmed on him? Could an LDS explain this to me? Thanks.

As far as we can see, he was ordained and held the priesthood. It was Joseph F. Smith who ***erted this was not the case, but I believe that further research into this showed that he was ordained an Elder. Brigham Young is the one who set the policy toward blacks and the priesthood and the reasons for this are unknown. But the church leaders decided not to undo the policy until the church leaders had revelation from the Lord regarding it.

What I can tell you though, is that the priesthood is not the same as in EV religions or the catholic religion. There is no salary and the power that is gained is only the power to serve others in capacity for the Lord.

By the way, this is a very long history and in order to fully understand it, you will really need to read up on many articles. It also, to really be understood, needs to be understood from within the paradigm of the church and of believers. (Just as the reading of the Bible must be done.) What you can know is that there are and were many black members who were and continued to be very faithful even when denied the priesthood. I am sure at this point, Elijah Abel has been sealed to his family as per the mercies of God who provides his blessings for all who faithfully desire them.

[jdjhere]

BigJulie stated: "I am sure at this point, Elijah Abel has been sealed to his family as per the mercies of God who provides his blessings for all who faithfully desire them."

As a Christian I believe our God, who is full of mercy, will make every decision of salvation based on whether or not we accepted the free gift from God in His Son, Jesus Christ, dying on the cross for us. The JUST for the UNJUST. His blood ALONE washed away our sins, and it was enough for the sins of the WHOLE world. If Elijah Abel ever accepted this and his family as well, whatever Joseph Smith Jr taught or said about black people OR salvation, as well as Brigham Young or ANY of the LDS church leaders, would crumble to nothing, and sealing would mean nothing to the Lord. As a family, they would be together anyway as long as they were all in Christ. This is MY Lord and my God and the only God I will have anything to do with.

[BigJulie]

BigJulie stated: "I am sure at this point, Elijah Abel has been sealed to his family as per the mercies of God who provides his blessings for all who faithfully desire them."

As a Christian I believe our God, who is full of mercy, will make every decision of salvation based on whether or not we accepted the free gift from God in His Son, Jesus Christ, dying on the cross for us. The JUST for the UNJUST. His blood ALONE washed away our sins, and it was enough for the sins of the WHOLE world. If Elijah Abel ever accepted this and his family as well, whatever Joseph Smith Jr taught or said about black people OR salvation, as well as Brigham Young or ANY of the LDS church leaders, would crumble to nothing, and sealing would mean nothing to the Lord. As a family, they would be together anyway as long as they were all in Christ. This is MY Lord and my God and the only God I will have anything to do with.

So, do you believe, as does my evangelical friend, that marriage ends at death?

[Radix]

I only made my comment to compare the comments before regarding others who the poster deemed "a christ."

I do not think it is strange at all to pray over someone. I do think it is strange for a group of pastors to do this for a political candidate though. I don't remember Christ endorsing anyone politically while on earth. ;)

Since Christ did not endorse anyone, then I guess no Mormons should be endorsing Romney, at least according you what you are saying.

[BigJulie]

Since Christ did not endorse anyone, then I guess no Mormons should be endorsing Romney, at least according you what you are saying.

From a religious point of view, you will never see a group of Mormons getting together to pray over Mitt Romney. Mormons vary in whom they support, but I think a lot of them support Romney because they see him as the best contender to fix this economy. You will never see the Mormon church endorse anyone who is running for office. You will see Mormon's get together to pray over those who are suffering from health or to bless our leaders in general, but never someone specific TO become a political leader.

P.S. And even though I don't support many of Obama's policies, I still pray for him and his well-being and those he works with.

[Radix]

From a religious point of view, you will never see a group of Mormons getting together to pray over Mitt Romney. Mormons vary in whom they support, but I think a lot of them support Romney because they see him as the best contender to fix this economy. You will never see the Mormon church endorse anyone who is running for office. You will see Mormon's get together to pray over those who are suffering from health or to bless our leaders in general, but never someone specific TO become a political leader.

P.S. And even though I don't support many of Obama's policies, I still pray for him and his well-being and those he works with.

Good reply. The church I attend will support issues, but not specific candidates.

[Russianwolfe]

Welcome Mister Cherry, (in 1973), just don't expect to come to the big house. It is not meant for you dark skin folks.

Any church that banned blacks, anywhere in the USA, was WRONG.

How about you guys Marvin, where your leaders wrong to ban black members of your church from the temple? For some reason, you guys never seem to want to answer that question.

#1 They were not banned from the temple. As I said before, they did do baptisms for the dead and that can only be done in the temple.

#2 To take out your endowments requires that males have the priesthood. Since the policy, not doctrine, of the church was to not ordain them to the priesthood of God it required a revelation from God to change that. It didn't matter if the policy was of man or God, it would still require a revelation from God to change. And it was not until that revelation was received that the policy was changed. There is a long history of people advocating that the blacks get the priesthood. Hugh B. Brown a member of the First Presidency made an attempt during the presidency of David O McKay but no revelation was received and so the policy was not changed. And when the policy was changed, it was received during a time after the Civil Rights era when those who were denied their rights were guaranteed those rights by law and Federal enforcement. There was no outside pressure from any organization or govenment body.

How did the Southern churches change their policy of banning blacks? Can you tell me that it was done by revelation? Or by some other method? If by some other method, can you say that it was of God or of man? Or has the policy changed at all?

When I go the the temple today, I see people of all different colors in the temple, all worshipping together.

The priesthood belongs to God and it is only God who can make any changes to how it is administered. The judgement of whether the leaders of the church were right or wrong, is up to God not me. I do not speak for God nor am I privy to his thoughts or intentions.

But you have not answered my questions? How about the tribe of Levy? Can you see that if God has done something in the past, you should not be surprised if the does it now? Or are you going to continue using a double standard that is depended on social norms?

Marvin

[Russianwolfe]

That is a new one to me (about blacks being allowed to baptize for the dead before 1978.) How about holding the priesthood Marvin, what prevented that?

When it comes to the Levites, that was their duty. It did not make them any more godly than anyone in the other tribes. The Old Testament priesthood has nothing to do with the current day Mormon concept.

If you believe that the OT Priesthood has nothing to do with the current day Mormon concept, then you don't really know as much about LDS theology as you think. But you still have not answered the question. Go back and read what I asked and see if you can actually answer the question I asked not one of your own making.

Marvin

[Russianwolfe]

Does anyone here know who Elijah Abel was?

He was a black man who was ordained to the priesthood by Joseph Smith. You might find more information about him at Black LDS (http://www.blacklds.org/)

Marvin

[Russianwolfe]

Good reply. The church I attend will support issues, but not specific candidates.

Yeah, and to endorse specific candidates would be illegal for a church to do and they would lose their tax exempt status. Good reason to avoid endorsing candidates.

Marvin

[Novato]

It seems that Novato likes to come in, call people who do not vote like him/her self "uneducated" and then run and hide.

Radix,

I merely offered this for discussion, no EV has offered anything worth responding to, which is pretty normal for this site.

Regards,

Novato

[alanmolstad]

Radix,

I merely offered this for discussion, no EV has offered anything worth responding to, which is pretty normal for this site.

Regards,

Novato......I share your views as to the direction of this conversation...

[Apologette]

#1 They were not banned from the temple. As I said before, they did do baptisms for the dead and that can only be done in the temple.

#2 To take out your endowments requires that males have the priesthood. Since the policy, not doctrine, of the church was to not ordain them to the priesthood of God it required a revelation from God to change that. It didn't matter if the policy was of man or God, it would still require a revelation from God to change. And it was not until that revelation was received that the policy was changed. There is a long history of people advocating that the blacks get the priesthood. Hugh B. Brown a member of the First Presidency made an attempt during the presidency of David O McKay but no revelation was received and so the policy was not changed. And when the policy was changed, it was received during a time after the Civil Rights era when those who were denied their rights were guaranteed those rights by law and Federal enforcement. There was no outside pressure from any organization or govenment body.

How did the Southern churches change their policy of banning blacks? Can you tell me that it was done by revelation? Or by some other method? If by some other method, can you say that it was of God or of man? Or has the policy changed at all?

When I go the the temple today, I see people of all different colors in the temple, all worshipping together.

The priesthood belongs to God and it is only God who can make any changes to how it is administered. The judgement of whether the leaders of the church were right or wrong, is up to God not me. I do not speak for God nor am I privy to his thoughts or intentions.

But you have not answered my questions? How about the tribe of Levy? Can you see that if God has done something in the past, you should not be surprised if the does it now? Or are you going to continue using a double standard that is depended on social norms?

Marvin

You are living under the New Covenant dispensation. All Christians are priests to God, and none are excluded by race. You Mormons are not of the lineage of Levi, or Aaron, or Ephraim for that matter. You have taken the OT Covenant, modified it, and attempt to replace the New Covenant with this distorted OT "covenant." You do not rightly divide the Word of God, which is quite evident to any Christian who reads the BoM.

[Radix]

Radix,

I merely offered this for discussion, no EV has offered anything worth responding to, which is pretty normal for this site.

Regards,

Novato

No thanks to your insulting remarks.

Since you insinuate I am "seemingly uneducated", do you care to give us your educational background? I have stated mine.

[jdjhere]

BigJulie asked: "So, do you believe, as does my evangelical friend, that marriage ends at death?"

You know what BigJulie? I really dont know! But there is a verse that says something about not marrying in the afterlife? But I have never studied it or that subject so I dont know.

[BigJulie]

BigJulie asked: "So, do you believe, as does my evangelical friend, that marriage ends at death?"

You know what BigJulie? I really dont know! But there is a verse that says something about not marrying in the afterlife? But I have never studied it or that subject so I dont know.

I asked because you said this:"As a family, they would be together anyway as long as they were all in Christ."

But, I ask you---what recognition do you believe that God makes to families? Does he still recognize someone as your child, your spouse, your parent? Or are you just one big, blended family now?

This is a really interesting point to me because I think these family ties to go on beyond death IF we recognize the Lord's hands regarding His sealing powers. When we are baptized, we join Christ's family. Through an everlasting covenant, we are sealed to Him and He is sealed to us. He is the bridegroom, we are the bride. But, do you think that God divorces all who were brought together through him once they die so that He no longer recognizes your marriage/family?

[Radix]

Hi All:

I must admit to a degree of puzzlement over the results in the Southern portion of the USA regarding the GOP primaries held there. It seems fairly obvious that Mitt Romney will win the eventual nomination, however I find the exit poll results quite fascinating in regard to the 80% of voters who align themselves to EV Christianity.

Since I have been many times in the South, and still remain puzzled by their, seemingly uneducated or uninformed, response to many things, I suppose I should understand the weirdness of their voting trends.



Novato

I see you still have not bothered to even apologize for your disparaging remarks. I have given my educational background, when will you lay out yours.

[RealFakeHair]

If you believe that the OT Priesthood has nothing to do with the current day Mormon concept, then you don't really know as much about LDS theology as you think. But you still have not answered the question. Go back and read what I asked and see if you can actually answer the question I asked not one of your own making.

Marvin

OverTime Priesthood and Mormon Concept?
Hum, ah, What?
I've put on my thinking cap,(watch out everybody), and My TC aint workin very well, or as it says, "There aint nothin in common with the OverTime Priesthood, and Mormonism?

[Novato]

I see you still have not bothered to even apologize for your disparaging remarks. I have given my educational background, when will you lay out yours.

Hi Radix,

If I caused offence I sincerely apologise. However if you examine the OP more exactly you might see that I stated:


seemingly uneducated or uninformed, response to many things, I suppose I should understand the weirdness of their voting trends.

The important word is seemingly.

My educational background is absolutely non-biblical. I have Masters Degrees in Political Science and Military subjects. I also have a, very old, BSc in Electronic Engineering. On a part time basis, just for fun, I completed a BA in History. One of the, very few, advantages of being a public servant. ( Smile)

Once again my apologies if I caused offence, that was not my intent.

Best regards,

Novato

[alanmolstad]

What voting this year in the Republican Primary has shown us is that there is a strong core of conservative voters this season that are ready to support a candidate that speaks things that reflect their views.

The SC primary was interesting , in that it went strongly for Newt and when you go back into history the winner of the SC Primary mostly always wins the Party top spot on the ticket.

This year is a bit different however in that whereas most years we have but a single conservative alternative guy in the race, this year we have 2 that seek to be the conservative candidate, with a 3rd person (Ron Paul) also helping to split up the votes.

This has ended us up with a conservative vote that seems on the outside to be all split up.....and in truth it is.

The South votes so far show us that there is a strong conservative vote out there to be tapped.

But the many names still on the ballot at this point tend to mute the importance of the conservatives.

[Apologette]

If you believe that the OT Priesthood has nothing to do with the current day Mormon concept, then you don't really know as much about LDS theology as you think. But you still have not answered the question. Go back and read what I asked and see if you can actually answer the question I asked not one of your own making.

Marvin

So, you are a descendent from Aaron? Hey, neat! Do you observe the Seventh Day Sabbath, never kindle a fire on that day, or wear clothing not woven from more than one type of cloth? You don't eat hot dogs, right? Or, if you do, only kosher! Does you wife light the Sabbath candle Friday night? What do you think of Schneerson, was he the messiah? And Washington Heights is Zion, right?

Right, you guys have an OT priesthood!

[jdjhere]

BigJulie Asked: "do you think that God divorces all who were brought together through him once they die so that He no longer recognizes your marriage/family?"

I guess I have never really thought about it but the word divorce probably isnt the word I would use since God "hates divorce." I guess (and these are only MY thoughts) that, since we will be eternal beings after the resurrection, maybe we will not need to reproduce anymore? Matthew 22:30 says "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."
As far as I know, angels do not reproduce, but I have to admit I do not know a whole lot about what the afterlife will be like, exactly anyway. I only DO know that Jesus said in his Fathers house there were many room and that He was going there to prepare a place for us. And I DO know that Jesus was the first one to get a glorified body and that we as his followers are promised the same. The rest to me is just a lot of speculation and I have alot of questions when I get there.

[BigJulie]

BigJulie Asked: "do you think that God divorces all who were brought together through him once they die so that He no longer recognizes your marriage/family?"

I guess I have never really thought about it but the word divorce probably isnt the word I would use since God "hates divorce." I guess (and these are only MY thoughts) that, since we will be eternal beings after the resurrection, maybe we will not need to reproduce anymore? Matthew 22:30 says "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."
As far as I know, angels do not reproduce, but I have to admit I do not know a whole lot about what the afterlife will be like, exactly anyway. I only DO know that Jesus said in his Fathers house there were many room and that He was going there to prepare a place for us. And I DO know that Jesus was the first one to get a glorified body and that we as his followers are promised the same. The rest to me is just a lot of speculation and I have alot of questions when I get there.

I understand what Matthew said regarding marriage. I also talked to a greek professor about it and he stated that the "tense" of the words are lost in English. Hence, I believe that Christ was speaking strictly to those whom asked him the question.

Yes, God doesn't like divorce---and yet, while you see that marriage is eternal when it comes to Christ as the bridegroom and the church as the bride--somehow you believe (from this verse in Matthew) that God would end marriage (his ins***ution and creation) upon death. Yet, we have Paul telling us that the man and the woman are together "in the Lord."

I also don't understand the concept, that God, the great creator, would--upon perfecting our bodies--make the creation part of our bodies defunct. It seems just the opposite---that one of the grand purposes of His creation is that it goes on creating. We see that in the world today--unless you think that your offspring are merely the result of God speaking a child for you.

While "the flesh" seemed to take on a wicked tone under Plato and the Greek thinkers, doesn't God merely teach us that we are to overcome the flesh--that the spirit needs to control the body? And isn't marriage creating a proper confine in which our spirits control the body to do the will of God?

I will never fully understand a religion that sees pro-creation as wicked and something that needs to be ended with resurrection and creation as glorious and the very definition of who God is. It seems that those positions run counter to each other.

[RealFakeHair]

BigJulie Asked: "do you think that God divorces all who were brought together through him once they die so that He no longer recognizes your marriage/family?"

I guess I have never really thought about it but the word divorce probably isnt the word I would use since God "hates divorce." I guess (and these are only MY thoughts) that, since we will be eternal beings after the resurrection, maybe we will not need to reproduce anymore? Matthew 22:30 says "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."
As far as I know, angels do not reproduce, but I have to admit I do not know a whole lot about what the afterlife will be like, exactly anyway. I only DO know that Jesus said in his Fathers house there were many room and that He was going there to prepare a place for us. And I DO know that Jesus was the first one to get a glorified body and that we as his followers are promised the same. The rest to me is just a lot of speculation and I have alot of questions when I get there.

I can't figure out why TBMs run away from 19th century mormon teachings.
They didn't bother to speculate. as far as Mormon men, it was glory days are a coming, and lots of sex too.:)

[BigJulie]

I can't figure out why TBMs run away from 19th century mormon teachings.
They didn't bother to speculate. as far as Mormon men, it was glory days are a coming, and lots of sex too.:)

Anybody who says this is thinking in the terms of "mistress" and not in the terms of wives. In those days, it was not uncommon (and is still no uncommon) for men to have mistresses.

But, a wife, takes on a whole new level of responsibility. No run running around behind the back of your wife--no excitement there. And no birth control, really---so, with the kids come all the responsibility. Dad gets to take on more and more responsibility, needs of all the family members and everyone can see what everyone else is getting. There is no secrecy. Oh---and don't forget, the first wife has the say regarding to others. Gee---wouldn't it be fun to be a second wife or third.

True story---a woman shows up in SLC with nothing. Brigham Young sends her to St. George to be the third wife of a man (keep in mind, no welfare checks back in those days). On the way there, they stop the wagon for a while in a small town. A man comes up to the woman and asks what she is doing. She explains that she is on her way to St. George to be the third wife of someone. The young man states, "if you get off the wagon right now, I will marry you." She does and they do get married that day. That was my great, great grandmother. ;)

*whew*, the excitement and the romance of living in the wild west!

[RealFakeHair]

Anybody who says this is thinking in the terms of "mistress" and not in the terms of wives. In those days, it was not uncommon (and is still no uncommon) for men to have mistresses.

But, a wife, takes on a whole new level of responsibility. No run running around behind the back of your wife--no excitement there. And no birth control, really---so, with the kids come all the responsibility. Dad gets to take on more and more responsibility, needs of all the family members and everyone can see what everyone else is getting. There is no secrecy. Oh---and don't forget, the first wife has the say regarding to others. Gee---wouldn't it be fun to be a second wife or third.

True story---a woman shows up in SLC with nothing. Brigham Young sends her to St. George to be the third wife of a man (keep in mind, no welfare checks back in those days). On the way there, they stop the wagon for a while in a small town. A man comes up to the woman and asks what she is doing. She explains that she is on her way to St. George to be the third wife of someone. The young man states, "if you get off the wagon right now, I will marry you." She does and they do get married that day. That was my great, great grandmother. ;)

Good for you.:)

[Libby]

Wow, that's an interesting story, Julie. :)

[BigJulie]

Wow, that's an interesting story, Julie. :)

Thanks Libby.

The fact of the matter is that people who want to criticize the early members of the church and their practice of pologamy often do what RealFakeHair does and act like the whole thing was sexual and these were a bunch of hyper-sexualized men running around having their way.

But anyone who actually reads the stories knows that for the most part, this was really hard living and a really hard time to be alive. Survival was the name of the game and many suffered greatly as they attempted to eke out an existance.

[Billyray]

But anyone who actually reads the stories knows that for the most part, this was really hard living and a really hard time to be alive. Survival was the name of the game and many suffered greatly as they attempted to eke out an existance.

Bigj can you show me where polygamy was commanded for the NT church?

[Russianwolfe]

Thanks Libby.

The fact of the matter is that people who want to criticize the early members of the church and their practice of pologamy often do what RealFakeHair does and act like the whole thing was sexual and these were a bunch of hyper-sexualized men running around having their way.

But anyone who actually reads the stories knows that for the most part, this was really hard living and a really hard time to be alive. Survival was the name of the game and many suffered greatly as they attempted to eke out an existance.

You are right. The critics are in their ivory tower criticizing what they don't understanding while those who were there and living at that time had to live it every day. Funny how reality seems to trump the ivory tower every time.

Marvin

PS. Don't forget that polygamy was never meant to be forever in this life. It was alway for a time as the Lord told Jacob in the Book of Mormon. In the Bible, there was no need to command polygamy because everyone believed it was good and proper for a man to have more than one life when he became prosperous. What would have to be commanded was to have only one life, which is what Paul was doing when he told Timothy that one of the qualifications of a bishop was to be the husband of one wife. Different culture, different needs and different commandments.

[Billyray]

In the Bible, there was no need to command polygamy because everyone believed it was good and proper for a man to have more than one life when he became prosperous. What would have to be commanded was to have only one life, which is what Paul was doing when he told Timothy that one of the qualifications of a bishop was to be the husband of one wife. Different culture, different needs and different commandments.

Hey Marvin can you show us where God commands members in the NT church to accept polygamy?

[Libby]

Thanks Libby.

The fact of the matter is that people who want to criticize the early members of the church and their practice of pologamy often do what RealFakeHair does and act like the whole thing was sexual and these were a bunch of hyper-sexualized men running around having their way.

But anyone who actually reads the stories knows that for the most part, this was really hard living and a really hard time to be alive. Survival was the name of the game and many suffered greatly as they attempted to eke out an existance.

Yeah, no kidding. I have read some of those stories and life was extremely difficult, back then. I think the critics just like to talk about sex. ;) (and other people's underwear :p)

[Apologette]

Yeah, no kidding. I have read some of those stories and life was extremely difficult, back then. I think the critics just like to talk about sex. ;) (and other people's underwear :p)

Actually, since Mormonism is a sex-based cult, made so by the first Mormon "prophet," Joseph Smith, it is an integral part of the Mormon cult. When you can't get to the highest heaven without some strange, bizarre "temple marriage," and get a special name that your hubby can use to call you forth from the grave, you better bet we'll bring these things up.

As far as their underwear goes, it's just another example of what people will do to please their false gods.

Mormons don't like to discuss their esoteric system. They conceal their practices and beliefs, even from converts. That's why only 25 per cent of those converts baptized into the cult remain in it.

[Apologette]

Hey Marvin can you show us where God commands members in the NT church to accept polygamy?

God, of course, commanded monogamy in the NT. Smith was not happily married and wanted more and more women. He projected that onto his "god," and got a "revelation" commanding adultery. It's as simple as that.

He even said Emma was going to be "destroyed" if she didn't accept his adulterous relationships - however, he's the one that got destroyed. He should have thought a little more before cursing his own wife.

[Libby]

Actually, since Mormonism is a sex-based cult, made so by the first Mormon "prophet," Joseph Smith, it is an integral part of the Mormon cult. When you can't get to the highest heaven without some strange, bizarre "temple marriage," and get a special name that your hubby can use to call you forth from the grave, you better bet we'll bring these things up.

As far as their underwear goes, it's just another example of what people will do to please their false gods.

Mormons don't like to discuss their esoteric system. They conceal their practices and beliefs, even from converts. That's why only 25 per cent of those converts baptized into the cult remain in it.

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. It is not a "sex-based cult". The Church is built on the teachings of Jesus Christ, as provided by prophets of the Restoration.

There is a belief in eternal marriage, yes. There is a belief that spirit children will be created, in the Celestial Kingdom, but the exact process is not known.


So, who invented the term “Celestial sex?"

Coexisting with these two deities was a limitless amount of cosmic spirit matter known as 'intelligence,' out of which Elohim and Heavenly Mother made countless spirit babies via celestial sex. —One Nation Under Gods, p. 285
∗ ∗ ∗
The quote illustrated above is a good example of how critics twist LDS beliefs into a form that makes them look ridiculous. Quotes made by early LDS leaders are often used to support the claim that Latter-day Saints believe in “Celestial sex.” It should be noted, however, that LDS leaders have never used the term "Celestial sex." This phrase was coined by critics of the Church, likely for its “shock value” in portraying the following concepts in LDS belief:

The belief that God the Father has a physical body.

The belief that there exists a Heavenly Mother who also possesses a physical body.

The belief that our Heavenly Father and Mother together are capable of creating “spirit children.”

Critics take these ideas and combine them, leading to a declaration that Latter-day Saints therefore believe in “Celestial sex.” Various anti-Mormon works then use this idea to mock LDS beliefs or shock their readers—though this claim does not describe LDS beliefs, but the critics' caricature of them.

The critics' ***umptions simply take what we know about our physical world and naively apply it to the afterlife. When one examines the critics’ point further, a key question ought to be raised: How does the union of two immortal beings in a physical manner produce spirit offspring? Latter-day Saint belief is that “spirit children” only receive a physical body upon being born on earth.

This question, of course, cannot be answered. It is pointless to speculate on the exact manner in which “spirit children” are produced, and to ***ume that this occurs through a process called “Celestial sex” is to apply a worldly mindset to a spiritual process. The bottom line: Latter-day Saints do not know the mechanism by which “spirit children” are produced, and no LDS doctrine claims that "celestial sex" is the means.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/%22Celestial_sex%22

[BigJulie]

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. It is not a "sex-based cult". The Church is built on the teachings of Jesus Christ, as provided by prophets of the Restoration.

There is a belief in eternal marriage, yes. There is a belief that spirit children will be created, in the Celestial Kingdom, but the exact process is not known.



http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/%22Celestial_sex%22

Libby, thank you for posting this. It appears that there are some who are bent on twisting our doctrines to fit their owned warped paradigms. First, they must ***ume they really know what we don't know and second, they must ***ume that sex is some terrible, evil thing that God condemns rather than a means of pro-creation and, when part of the appropriate bounds of marriage (which God has set) one of the most wonderful parts of the human relationship which not only brings a husband and wife closer together but produces children, one of God's greatest gifts. My moments of greatest joy come the relationship I have with my husband (which includes sex) and the relationship I have with my children. When I think about giving birth to my babies, with my husband next to me---I just can't think of a time that I feel closer and more appreciative to God for my wonderful life! I get to have that now again renewed as I experience having grand-children.

[Billyray]

Libby, thank you for posting this. It appears that there are some who are bent on twisting our doctrines to fit their owned warped paradigms.

No BigJ we get it right and you don't like it. We are not the ones who believes that you and your husband will procreate spirit babies to populate your own world someday--that is what you belive. Your constant denial of what you really believe is getting tiresome.

[Apologette]

No BigJ we get it right and you don't like it. We are not the ones who believes that you and your husband will procreate spirit babies to populate your own world someday--that is what you belive. Your constant denial of what you really believe is getting tiresome.

This is the utter deception of . They have two sets of beliefs. One for the general public which they use to proselytize, and the other for the inner core group of Mormons. It's a very sad situation. If you point out the one, they lapse into the other. The only hope is simply to tell the truth so that lurkers will be exposed to the true teachings of the cult:

Mormonism LDS Apostle Melvin J. Ballard (1873-1939) wrote, "What do we mean by endless or eternal increase? We mean that through the righteousness and faithfulness of men and women who keep the commandments of God they will come forth with celestial bodies, fitted and prepared to enter into their great, high and eternal glory in the celestial kingdom of God; and unto them, through their preparation, there will come children, who will be spirit children. I don't think that is very difficult to comprehend and understand" (Three Degrees of Glory, p.10).

Orson Pratt: "As soon as each God has begotten many millions of male and female spirits, and his Heavenly inheritance becomes too small, to comfortably accommodate his great family, he, in connection with his sons, organizes a new world, after a similar order to the one which we now inhabit, where he sends both the male and female spirits to inhabit tabernacles of flesh and bones" (The Seer, p. 37).

McConkie: "Every person married in the temple for time and for all eternity has sealed upon him, conditioned upon his faithfulness, all of the blessings of the ancient patriarchs, including the crowning promise and ***urance of eternal increase, which means, literally, a posterity as numerous as the dust particles of the earth."

Let's face it, this sounds like Roman mythology, and that's why the LDS like to conceal their paganistic beliefs.

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE=Apologette;117763]This is the utter deception of . They have two sets of beliefs. One for the general public which they use to proselytize, and the other for the inner core group of Mormons. It's a very sad situation. If you point out the one, they lapse into the other. The only hope is simply to tell the truth so that lurkers will be exposed to the true teachings of the cult:
This is completely and utterly untrue. I have asked you multiple times if you will give full disclosure as to why the JoD has not been cannonized, and it appears it is you who refuse to give the whole truth.


Mormonism LDS Apostle Melvin J. Ballard (1873-1939) wrote, "What do we mean by endless or eternal increase? We mean that through the righteousness and faithfulness of men and women who keep the commandments of God they will come forth with celestial bodies, fitted and prepared to enter into their great, high and eternal glory in the celestial kingdom of God; and unto them, through their preparation, there will come children, who will be spirit children. I don't think that is very difficult to comprehend and understand" (Three Degrees of Glory, p.10). We have no idea and it has never been revealed how spirit bodies come to be through procreation, but as I explained, we--unlike you, do not see our sexualities as an evil thing to be done away with when we are "perfected" in our resurrected bodies. But, a resurrected body is not the same as a earthly body and spirits are not the same as a resurrected body--so, this is unknown to us.


Orson Pratt: "As soon as each God has begotten many millions of male and female spirits, and his Heavenly inheritance becomes too small, to comfortably accommodate his great family, he, in connection with his sons, organizes a new world, after a similar order to the one which we now inhabit, where he sends both the male and female spirits to inhabit tabernacles of flesh and bones" (The Seer, p. 37).
Once again, can you please give full disclosure for regarding "The Seer"---as once again, this is not considered revelation, but discussion.


McConkie: "Every person married in the temple for time and for all eternity has sealed upon him, conditioned upon his faithfulness, all of the blessings of the ancient patriarchs, including the crowning promise and ***urance of eternal increase, which means, literally, a posterity as numerous as the dust particles of the earth." Yes, you can find this same promise in the Bible given to Abraham.

So, I have two questions for you?
One: Is it absolutely known HOW that spirit bodies will come to be? Why do you think it is through intercourse?

Two: Do you think human sexuality is a wicked and evil thing that God ends upon our death?

[alanmolstad]

Two: Do you think human sexuality is a wicked and evil thing that God ends upon our death?
Sex is for reproduction within marriage.
As there is no marriage in the Kingdom, there is no sex. and no reproduction.

So I would not use the term "wicked" rather it's like a tool that is a moot point in the afterlife.

[BigJulie]

Sex is for reproduction within marriage.
As there is no marriage in the Kingdom, there is no sex. and no reproduction.

So I would not use the term "wicked" rather it's like a tool that is a moot point in the afterlife.

So, to you, God the great creator, upon perfecting your mortal body, takes away from it the ability to create. Is that your thinking? What about your other creative abilities? Will they be gone too?

[Billyray]

So, to you, God the great creator, upon perfecting your mortal body, takes away from it the ability to create. Is that your thinking? What about your other creative abilities? Will they be gone too?
Nowhere in the Bible does it state that we will procreate spirit babies in heaven BigJ.

[RealFakeHair]

Nowhere in the Bible does it state that we will procreate spirit babies in heaven BigJ.

I had a grandson born on the 21, and a granddaughter born on the 23, of this month.
That's why I am hiding here on a Sa****ay here at the office.:)

[BigJulie]

I had a grandson born on the 21, and a granddaughter born on the 23, of this month.
That's why I am hiding here on a Sa****ay here at the office.:)

I saw Billyray's link through you. ;). We are taught that we are the spirit offspring of God the Father even in the Bible. What we are not taught is how we are.

That said, I still find it fascinating that the critics of the LDS church seem to think procreation is a earthly thing that God would get rid of when perfecting our bodies.

[Billyray]

That said, I still find it fascinating that the critics of the LDS church seem to think procreation is a earthly thing that God would get rid of when perfecting our bodies.

What about those who are in the Terrestial and Telestial kingdoms BigJ?

[alanmolstad]

So, to you, God the great creator, upon perfecting your mortal body, takes away from it the ability to create. Is that your thinking? What about your other creative abilities? Will they be gone too?yes....there is no reproduction in the Kingdom.

There is no marriage in the kingdom...

There is none of this limited relationship that we have now in the kingdom.

The way we are going to be is compared to the angels....the angels dont have children,,,they dont have a next generation....they dont die and need replacing.

[BigJulie]

yes....there is no reproduction in the Kingdom.

There is no marriage in the kingdom...

There is none of this limited relationship that we have now in the kingdom.

The way we are going to be is compared to the angels....the angels dont have children,,,they dont have a next generation....they dont die and need replacing.

It is not a matter of dying and needing replacing, but merely a great expansion through the great creator.

The kingdom of God is like a mustard seed....

To you, the great Creator of us all ends procreation with this life, to me--the procreative part of our bodies become useless. Interesting.

[Billyray]

To you, the great Creator of us all ends procreation with this life, to me--the procreative part of our bodies become useless. Interesting.

What is interesting is the fact that you believe you create spirit babies in heaven when there is not a hint of this concept in the Bible.

[Radix]

Hi Radix,

If I caused offence I sincerely apologise. However if you examine the OP more exactly you might see that I stated:



The important word is seemingly.

My educational background is absolutely non-biblical. I have Masters Degrees in Political Science and Military subjects. I also have a, very old, BSc in Electronic Engineering. On a part time basis, just for fun, I completed a BA in History. One of the, very few, advantages of being a public servant. ( Smile)

Once again my apologies if I caused offence, that was not my intent.

Best regards,

Novato

I see that you have "seemingly" apologized. With all your non-Southern superiority, it is ashamed your still not able to recognize your arrogance.

[Novato]

I see that you have "seemingly" apologized. With all your non-Southern superiority, it is ashamed your still not able to recognize your arrogance.

Thank you for your gracious acknowledgement of my apology, true Southern courtesy, not.

[Apologette]

Thank you for your gracious acknowledgement of my apology, true Southern courtesy, not.

Ironic that you speak of "courtesy."

[Radix]

Thank you for your gracious acknowledgement of my apology, true Southern courtesy, not.

True "seemingly" apology, NOT.

[alanmolstad]

The next test of the power of the Southern voter to effect change in the election will come with the naming of Mitt's VP pick.

The sway of the South may be so strong that Mitt needs to pick a VP from the South to firm-up his support there with the voters.

Mitt is from the very liberal NorthEast.....thus it seems normal for him to reach out to a different part of the country with the person he picks to run next to him as VP>

we shall see....

[RealFakeHair]

Hey Marvin can you show us where God commands members in the NT church to accept polygamy?

Old, or new testament.

[alanmolstad]

Hi All:

I must admit to a degree of puzzlement over the results in the Southern portion of the USA regarding the GOP primaries held there. It seems fairly obvious that Mitt Romney will win the eventual nomination, however I find the exit poll results quite fascinating in regard to the 80% of voters who align themselves to EV Christianity.

Since I have been many times in the South, and still remain puzzled by their, seemingly uneducated or uninformed, response to many things, I suppose I should understand the weirdness of their voting trends.

Romney came in third to Santorum & Grinich mostly because of the 80% of EV voters.


Primary voters are mostly members of different teams....and so the leader that gets his team out the most tends to do the best.
The results of the primary are totally normal, it's nothing to be so shocked about.
You have a strong Christian vote that came out for the people they felt best represented their values.
Both Santorum & Grinich have really reached out to the Christian body of voters...and made a very strong effort to reach out to the pro-Life conservative voter.

Now compare that to what Mitt did?

Mitt ran away from the pro-Life voter.

Mitt made no effort at all to draw closer to the pro-Life voter.

Mitt treated the pro-Life issue as a side issue that he never really wanted to run on.
When later Mitt ran for President I don't think there was even one single pro-Life ad sent out by his campaign in the States where it could have made the difference.

Im my home State that has a very strong pro-Life vote, there was not a single Mitt ad that was pro-life....talk about not firing up your base!

Mitt tried to run on the economy and other complected issues that no one really understands where he was any different than Obama....and he failed to run on the issues that would have won him the election.

What did happen however is that the whole Conservative end of the party has once again showed that unless it has it's voice listened to, the party will never win.
The future has to be with a strong outreach to the conservative Christian voter.....case-closed.

[alanmolstad]

now this time around you may ask yourself why did Trump do so well?...
The answer is found in the fact that Trump brings new people to the party....

all the other guys who were in the primary were always attempting to swing current Republicans to vote for them...
Trump on the other hand played to the non-Republicans...people who have not been involved much with Party doings.......and they are the ones who came into the Party system and supported him..

[BigJulie]

now this time around you may ask yourself why did Trump do so well?...
The answer is found in the fact that Trump brings new people to the party....

all the other guys who were in the primary were always attempting to swing current Republicans to vote for them...
Trump on the other hand played to the non-Republicans...people who have not been involved much with Party doings.......and they are the ones who came into the Party system and supported him..

Trump is the reason I have come to understand that many "christians" are christian in name only. They will vote for someone who has cheated on his wife, cheated in his finances, bullied others, makes segregated statements based on race and religion and has put many a small business person under--why? Because he has promised them that even in their uneducated state, just being white and American makes them better than others and that they deserve a better ***. He has not spoken to our better selves, but rather to our worst.

[alanmolstad]

actually, I believe President Trump is going to be the best president we have ever had.

Step by step he is doing what he said he would do....

and, I fully support his efforts to bring this country back to a place where we can be once again proud of our country...

[alanmolstad]

the basic point the guy had when he started this topic is that Christians would not support with their vote a guy who is Catholic if they took their faith serious.


I forget, did the Mormons support Trump or Hillary in the last election?

[alanmolstad]

Trump is the reason I have come to understand that many "christians" are christian in name only. They will vote for someone who has cheated on his wife, cheated in his finances, bullied others, makes segregated statements based on race and religion and has put many a small business person under--why? Because he has promised them that even in their uneducated state, just being white and American makes them better than others and that they deserve a better ***. He has not spoken to our better selves, but rather to our worst.

Who carried Utah again in the last election?