Larry O’Donnell attacks Romney’s religion: Mormonism ‘invented’ to excuse infidelity


Can you imagine O’Donnell going after Rep. Keith Ellison’s Muslim religion to shame Ellison, like he’s going after Romney’s Mormon religion to shame Romney? I dare say he’d be in the unemployment line with his buddy Keith Olbermann (via Newsbusters):

UPDATE: Johnny Dollar would like to know if during his attack on Mormonism, did LarryO mentioned Harry Reid? Well, I don’t have the whole segment, but I think we all know the answer to that.

Wow, how many layers of hypocrisy are there in this onion of a segment?

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • JimmyBleep

    It’s amazing how far off the deep left msnbc is traveling. They keep getting worse.

    • stinkprogress

      lets not forget where they get their marching orders from

    • sDee

      Raw meat for the crowds.

      Next? Faux outrage and O’Donnell gets a week hiatus.

      Message? Hands off Romney. Open season as usual on Christian candidates.

      Religious Right rushes to Romney’s defense.

      This is getting boring already.

  • This is only the beginning. People didn’t vet Obama, and look what we got for our negligence. People had better vet each Republican Candidate or we get the same.

    • kim

      Yep. It is only the beginning. You will know Mormonism better than the back of your hand when this is all over.

      • james stephenson

        *You will know what the media wants you to think is true about mormonism better…

        • Sadly, there is so much stuff out there that the MSM could just go with the truth for a very long time.

    • Sober_Thinking

      Too late. Romney is already measuring the curtains in the white house.

      • He has come away with three Bush endorsements, but not W’s.

    • iKant

      I’m not sure I understand your comment. O’Donnell’s claims regarding Mormonism were completely false. How is that vetting Mitt Romney?

  • yhxqqsn

    They gotta do whatever they think it takes to keep the marxist-socialist-progressives in power. Their constituents either lack the intelligence to notice the hypocritical idiocy or are exactly like them and don’t care.

  • teri_b

    Several years ago I was watching O’Donnell on the McLaughlin Group on PBS, and he went on a rageful rant about Romney and Mormonism. It was an absolutely stunning display of bigotry. He had been a weekly regular on that show, but that was the last time he appeared there. The only place he can work now is where bigots are welcome – MSNBC.

    • Sober_Thinking

      MSNBC: Most Stupid Newsmaking Bigots in the Country.

    • kim

      I’ve got no problems with anyone vetting our candidates so long as it is done in a professional way and there is no double standard.

      I can’t wait for the Mitt-bots to see what they bought into. This is why we individually vet our own candidates before we vote in the primary!

      • teri_b

        There is legitimate vetting and then there is bigotry.

        For me, one of the most hopeful signs I have seen for Christianity in America is the fact that the Evangelicals have embraced Santorum, a Catholic. As a homeschooling mom, I was shunned repeatedly by Evangelicals. My next door neighbor screamed at me one day that I was not a Christian. And we were best friends.

        I hate religious bigotry.

        • kim

          The difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is not even in the same realm as Mormonism.

          Do you think we should not vet Obama’s church attendance and his views on black liberation theology?

          These things are very relevant.

          There is no religious test in the sense that anyone can and should be able to hold office, however, we should individually be drawing our own conclusions on as much information as possible. A decision to enter public life will inevitable draw scrutiny, as it should.

          • teri_b

            I have a problem with Black Liberation theology from the standpoint of what it teaches about Christ. That, on its own wouldn’t stop me from voting for someone any more than if he were Jewish. The anti-American sentiment expressed by his church and pastor are much more relevant.

            • kim

              Mormons do not believe in the Trinity.

              • teri_b

                I know their teachings are antithetical to mine. My point was that is where religious freedom comes in. If Romney started ranting anti-American nonsense like Obama’s pastor did, that would disqualify him for me.

                By the way, thank you for your kind thoughts earlier.

                • Ciloman FreeBSD

                  So historical and social political facts are anti-American now?

                • teri_b

                  What? I am not sure what you are asking.

              • Carrie Yost

                Kim… it sounds like you need to learn a little bit about our history and about who Mormons are today. I’ll tell you what my church teaches me. It teaches me to be kind, selfless, family oriented, educated, generous, “Christian,” to give to the poor, to give of my time to the sick, needy and elderly. It tells me to love my neighbor, to teach my children to be upstanding citizens, to be honest in my dealings with my fellow man, to do unto others as I would have others do unto me. It has taught me to be a hard worker and conscientious. Our early leaders were shot, driven out of Missouri, many women were raped, men were killed and children froze to death on their way to Utah. We were persecuted then AND now for what??? What DID WE EVER DO to make people hate us??? We have the largest humanitarian effort by ANY church in the ENTIRE WORLD. OUR MEMBERS are the most Generous people in the UNITED STATES. Active members in our church live longer and have healthier marriages than all others in the United States of America. All these are backed up with research. Still somehow, lies like this are made up about Joseph Smith and you look for information from people that hate us. If you want to LEARN about Mormons, ask a Mormon. I would never ask a Catholic about a Baptist, yet most people learn from anti-mormons, about mormons. From people like O’Donnell. We are GOOD people. If you don’t want Mitt Romney for president due to his policy, fine. But for heavens sake, his Mormonism should NOT be something that holds him back. You backing up bigotry because you THINK it’s the truth, doesn’t help anyone. Any mormon will be happy to talk to you about our history. We know and understand better than anyone. There is SO much garbage from people who hate us strewn all over the internet. I would suggest you go to for any future questions you have.

                • So I guess men who fear God like Albert Mohler has a deep hatred for all things Mormon? I think you misunderstand not only his but my desire. We love Mormons. We love you guys enough to show and demonstrate who Joseph Smith is and that the doctrines and beliefs of Mormonism will not bring a person any closer to Jesus than someone who is a Buddhist.

                  Is Joseph Smith a false prophet?

                • Thank you, Carrie. You have articulated so very well your feelings and indeed the feelings of many mormon folk, about this issue. I was recently referred to a short video on youtube that I thought effectively explained what we (mormons) are about. Granted, the quality of the sound and graphics isn’t too hot, but I think it’s worth a look/listen to. Don’t expect too much doctrine from this 4 minute clip, but what it does talk about is basically what I wish more people would realize about us. We’re normal every day folk who try to follow Jesus Christ’s teachings the best we know how. Btw, be warned: the Scottish accent of the creator takes some getting used to. Hope it puts a smile on someones face. 🙂! For a more serious look into what we believe, if in fact people really care to know, why not check out any or all of the talks given by our leaders at the recent General Conference of the church at

                • It is sad. You desire to follow Christ, yet reject his teachings. This is a very sad state of affairs. One of your leaders, Oran Hyde claimed that it was Jesus who was married at Cana and had Mary & Martha and others as his wives. Mormons arguing that Jesus was a polygamous. That is not the Jesus of the Bible.

                  Again, if Joseph Smith is a false prophet, why are you believing in him?

                • Calvin_02
                • You need to go to the source. I am not surprised that this is hidden and have no desire for the light of day. It is what happens with Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witness. Hide what we actually believe from others…

                  Look up Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses vol. 2 p. 210 He claims that Jesus was married to a multiple of women. Again, nothing made up by those outside Mormonism, just those from within hiding what they truly teach.

                • Calvin_02

                  PuritanD71, we are not ignorant to the existence of the Journal of Discourses. What you and many others fail to grasp is that it is not a source of our Doctrine. In the text, it’s never claimed to be doctrine.

                  (the following words are not my own)There is a difference, even in a prophet, between doctrine confirmed by God and opinion.

                  The Journal of DISCOURSES (discourses–discussions, possibilities, not doctrines) has a great many theories or statements that were essentially only thoughts or theories. Some of it became doctrine. Some of it was later rejected by prophets–sometimes the same prophet, sometimes not–who sought divine confirmation or clarification. Some of what is in there simply needed clarification, or wasn’t quite accurate and so led to misinterpretations by laymen. This is precisely why we don’t consider the Journals compilations of doctrine. They’re really not.

                • I appreciate your response on this issue. It seems to me that it muddles things more than clarifying.

                  You have a journal of teachings and theories that may or may not be “doctrine”. This seems to be an ease of convenience to me. So, Deuteronomy 18:20-22 has no bearing on LDS?

                  Gotta love being able to have your cake and eat it too. Have the freedom to teach what you want as long as it is in the journal. Maybe it is true, maybe it isn’t, it just depends on the prophet/president at that time.

                  So far, I have been informed just from this thread by Mormons that 1) We do know what we believe 2) Mormon doctrine is hard to pin down at times, but we assume what it means 3) We have the Journal of Discourse that are things taught by Mormons that may or may not be doctrine just depends on the prophet, yet still can be taught.

                  This is very confusing, isn’t it? Mormonism’s inability to know what Truth is seems to be an Achilles heel. Just for clarification: Was the point that blacks could not be priests before 1978: a doctrine, a teaching, a prophecy, or just a misunderstanding of an idea found in the journal?

                • Calvin_02

                  So, Deuteronomy 18:20-22 has no bearing on LDS?

         scroll down to “Part 1: Joseph Smith and Deuteronomy 18”

                  Maybe it is true, maybe it isn’t, it just depends on the prophet/president at that time.

                  More like on what the Phrophet today says. Living phropet trumps dead phrophet.

                  Was the point that blacks could not be priests before 1978: a doctrine, a teaching, a prophecy, or just a misunderstanding of an idea found in the journal?

                  Joseph Smith never taught this doctrine. The Book of Mormon says that all men are equal in God’s sight. Joseph Smith is known to have ordained blacks to the priesthood and to have bought the freedom of blacks. He proposed buying the freedom of all slaves, when he ran for President. The LDS church was the first church to have mixed congregations. Part of the reason Mormons were hated in Missouri, was because they supported abolishing slavery. Joseph was very progressive – a beacon of light in a sea of darkness – old ideas, deeply ingrained, die hard. He complained bitterly about the reticence of the saints to accept the new doctrines. The members of the church weren’t quite ready to give up all of their racist beliefs. It was more of a policy of Brigham Young’s than anything. Based on his opinion. More on the fallibility of phropets:

                  For more on blacks in the Church:

                  Gotta love being able to have your cake and eat it too. Have the freedom to teach what you want as long as it is in the journal

                  3) We have the Journal of Discourse that are things taught by Mormons that may or may not be doctrine just depends on the prophet, yet still can be taught.

                  I didn’t say that. What I’m saying is, the things that we don’t know, we don’t waste time on. I don’t know if you think that the Journal of Discourses is some go-to source for what is preached in church, but it’s not. I don’t know how I can make that any clearer.

                  This is very confusing, isn’t it? Mormonism’s inability to know what Truth is seems to be an Achilles heel.

                  Let me quote from our Articles of Faith: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God.” IOW, we believe that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are fallible because they are written by men (who are fallible). But we do believe the BoM is the most correct of any book on earth, and is full of truth.

                • The revelations you share are what should be concerning to all, especially when one who is running for president clings to Mormonism. It is odd that one would want to claim the Bible written fallibly when it claims to be breathed out by God, Himself. On the other hand, BoM has not been able to hold under any scrutiny of verifying it being true.

                  The other aspect is that the god that Mormons worship is so weak that he/she is powerless of keeping continuity of what he has said over time. To have to rely on a prophet to speak and hope for the best that what he said is from god is not biblical. The very idea that one can say “thus sayeth the Lord” and have no hope that it will continue after that prophet retires/dies is a religion filled with hopelessness and uncertainty.

                  When the Christian God speaks, His word will never come back void. What He says will happen will always happen.

                  And, this is why Mormonism is not Christian. I find it hard to believe that there is no absolute truth in Mormonism. So, one could accurately deduce that Mormonism is in part a mixture of Arianism, Pelagianism, and Open Theism in the belief system. All three have been denounced as being heretical to Orthodox Christianity.

          • teri_b

            I should also add that as a Catholic I have serious problems with LDS as far as docrine. But I agree with what you said. If religion defines who a person is, you have to wonder what they are doing right in the LDS Church. (Harry Reid aside) Look at their families, their charity, their values. It is very impressive.

            Whatever problems we may have with Romney’s political skills, I doubt anyone could find fault with the way he conducts himself in private.

            • kim

              It is all works based, not grace based.

              • teri_b

                I know. It is not what Christians believe. But do you think that should disqualify a Mormom from running for office? I am not sure how it would affect his ability to govern.

                I would certainly understand, all other things being equal, choosing a candidate who you identify with best. I identify well with Santorum, I am also an Italian-American Catholic from the East Coast with very traditional values (even about birth control!), but my affinity for Santorum won’t make me turn against another candidate.

                • kim

                  Constitutionally it should not disqualify him from running for office. And it is not. But every candidate should be held under scrutiny so that we, individually, can make informed choices.

                  Everyone has different priorities for how and why they choose a candidate. Religion will be very important to some. Not so much for others.

                  Abortion is a deal-breaker for me personally (and why I struggle w/ Romney even more than his religion) but others may not agree. That is why we each have our own vote to steward as we wish.

                • teri_b

                  I agree with that statement 100%. Abortion would be my number one issue as well, and I am not worried about Romney on this since he couldn’t bring himself to sign legislation for embryonic stem cell research. Compare that to Obama not voting for protection for infants who survive abortions.

                  To expand this discussion a little (you have been making me think), I think the LDS Church’s expansion is an indication of the failure of Christian churches (mostly mainline Protestant and Catholic) to evangelize or to hold fast to their traditional beliefs on the moral issues. I doubt that many people who belong to the LDS church know what their doctrines are. I had a little exposure to it when studying Christian apologetics, and had a hard time believing people converted to LDS for any reason other than the good example they set with their decent families and their kindness. Christians could learn from that.

                • kim

                  I think there is MUCH truth in your second paragraph. Judgment begins in the house of the Lord.

                  As an evangelical, I can only say praise God that the Catholics held strong on birth control and abortion, or I don’t believe we would still be having this conversation today. Ultrasound technology has yielded a shift in views on abortion in the younger population. The pro-life movement is winning some small battles. But I don’t believe any of this would have been happening if the Catholic Church had caved in. Shame on the Evangelicals for not being more bold on this at the time of Roe v. Wade.

                • james stephenson

                  sorry kim, i’m just using this space to warn readers that the next posts for a while are all about doctrines and religions. it seems the conversation is headed that way. to learn about various doctrines and faiths talk to the ministers of the faith you are learning about.

                • T4Ut

                  “I doubt that many people who belong to the LDS church know what their doctrines are.”

                  You would be wrong.

                  “I had a little exposure to it when studying Christian apologetics …”

                  Where did you get your source material? If you what to know what a Christian believes you ask one, not their enemy or detractors.

                  Btw, Kim is wrong to say “It is all works based, not grace based.”

                  The LDS people do believe that grace is required for salvation. No exceptions!

                  “It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” Well what can I do? Be as good as I can. Does it save me? No, but it is important for me? Yes, as it is for all other Christians. Faith without works is dead.

                • teri_b

                  I don’t want to spread any falsehoods. If I am wrong about something, I certainly want to know. I am assuming you are a member of LDS. Could you tell me whether or not they believe in the Trinity? Do they think that husbands determine whether their wives get into heaven? What about the planet thing?

                  Please know that I am not trying to be disrespectful. I am sincere about wanting to correct anything I have said.

                • T4Ut

                  I would be more than happy to answer any and all of these questions.

                  I am LDS. For almost 40 years, thank you. incidentally, we also homeschool and are thought to be weirdos.

                  “Could you tell me whether or not they believe in the Trinity?” We do.

                  We believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Where we differ from most Christians is in believing that they are all one being. We do not. We believe that as the Bible teaches the Father, Son and Holy spirit are One as Jesus prayed in his great inassesory prayer. Speaking of his disciples he said “Father let them be one as we are one” We do not believe that he was asking the Father to make them into one person, but rather of one heart and mind and spirit in unity. The Holy Trinity has this unity in perfection. Also have you ever asked yourself if the Father and the Son are really one being then who is Jesus praying to? Himself? What’s the point of that? To trick us? To avoid confusion, most LDS do not use the term Trinity.

                  “Do they think that husbands determine whether their wives get into heaven?” The unequivocal answer to this is a resounding NO! Neither do we believe in (as any listener to Glen Beck can attest) the Rev Wright’s universal salvation. As one of our articles of faith states: “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adams transgressions”

                  “What about the planet thing?” All I can guess from this is that you are referring to what we believe to be a scriptural translation that Joseph Smith translated by the aid of God from an ancient Egyptian papyrus that gives an account of a vision given to the prophet Abraham, where he was given a vision of God’s creations and was told in his language that the name of the planet closest to the dwelling place of God was Kolob. We take that at face value. It is not as some believe the name of Heaven, or God’s planet, but is in his neighborhood.

                • teri_b

                  I want to further discuss the Trinity. But first, I should have been more specific about the planet thing. I thought you each got your own planet if you get to heaven. If I am mistaken, I am sorry for my ignorance. But I very much appreciate that you don’t take offense at my nonsense. Maybe some of these perceptions need to be straightened out if they are incorrect. As long as we can all stay respectful here, we might learn something.

                • T4Ut

                  “I want to further discuss the Trinity.” OK.

                  “I thought you each got your own planet if you get to heaven.”

                  Hmmm… that’s the first time I’ve ever heard that one. Sounds good to me. :p

                  My skin is verrry thick. I won’t be offended. As Mrs Roosevelt said “no one can make you feel inferior without your own consent”. I believe no one can make you feel offended without your own consent and I refuse to consent.

                • teri_b

                  Thanks. OK, as far as the Trinity goes, we may not be so far apart. Obviously, One God in Three Divine Persons is nothing any human has the capacity to fully understand. We believe it as part of divine revelation.

                  We believe there is One God made up of three Divine Persons who are distinct from one another and are fully equal to one another and neither existed before the other. It is a supernatural mystery that exceeds human understanding.

                • T4Ut

                  “We believe there is One God made up of three Divine Persons who are distinct from one another and are fully equal to one another and neither existed before the other. It is a supernatural mystery that exceeds human understanding.”

                  I can totally agree with all of that.

                  “We believe it as part of divine revelation.”

                  So do we.

                • teri_b

                  So how are we different in our beliefs? Do you believe there is only one God?

                • carbonfootprints

                  Just to beat him to the punch… Yep!

                • teri_b

                  So, then you do believe in the Trinity? You are a Trinitarian religion?

                • carbonfootprints

                  I thought T4Ut answered that question very well in a previous comment. I am going to recommend that you visit It answers a lot of questions. I have enjoyed reading this thread. My best friend growing up was, and still is a staunch, practicing Catholic. There are few people in the world better than she is. I love the open dialogue that helps dispell misunderstanding. Thank you for being so willing to listen.

                • Impossible to be a Trinitarian if you believe that God was a man and that man can become a god.

                  “We believe in a God who is Himself progressive, whose majesty is intelligence; whose perfection consists in eternal advancement — a Being who has attained His exalted state by a path which now His children are permitted to follow, whose glory it is their heritage to share. In spite of the opposition of the sects, in the face of direct charges of blasphemy, the Church proclaims the eternal truth: ‘As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be.‘” (LDS Apostle James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, Ch.24, p.430 – p.431)

                  Unless you are going to throw your own apostle under the bus.

                • Calvin_02

                  “I thought you each got your own planet if you get to heaven.”

                  Hmmm… that’s the first time I’ve ever heard that one. Sounds good to me. :p

                  I think that falsehood was proliferated by an anti-Mormon film called “The God Makers” and now it’s just a common lie found in anti-Mormon literature.

                • So I suppose that, “We believe in a God who is Himself progressive, whose majesty is intelligence; whose perfection consists in eternal advancement — a Being who has attained His exalted state by a path which now His children are permitted to follow, whose glory it is their heritage to share. In spite of the opposition of the sects, in the face of direct charges of blasphemy, the Church proclaims the eternal truth: ‘As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be.‘” (LDS Apostle James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, Ch.24, p.430 – p.431)

                  Is a made up quote, a distortion of the truth. Right?

                • T4Ut

                  I do not dispute this quote. But you may have some faulty logic in this matter.

                  “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be.”

                  I have a father. When I became a father I did not displace my father. In fact, he became a Grandfather, the name implying that he has been glorified and exalted by having further posterity. This is how LDS believe that God is progressing in eternal advancement. He is not learning anything new. He is omnipotent.

                  1 John 3:2

                  “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.”

                  What does a puppy grow up to be? A dog.
                  What does a son of God grow up to be? Like his father.

                  Perhaps you will contend that only Christ is the son of God. I agree that He is “the only begotten of God in the flesh”. God is the father of his body and spirit and the father of all mankind in the spirit.

                  Galatians 4:7

                  “Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.”

                  Hebrews 12:7

                  “If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?”

                  Romans 8:14

                  “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”

                  The word of God stands on it’s own.

                • teri_b

                  Whoa. That caught my attention. So you believe men become gods?

                • Exactly how does a full quote from a Mormon apostle has faulty logic for you?

                • Ciloman FreeBSD

                  Mormons believe that God was once a man who was elevated to God. And God of his own planet Kolob. They also believe that God has multiple wives. And that he fathered Jesus Christ, and Satan in the spirit world. Satan wanted to become greater than his father, so God punished him by sending him in spirit form to earth. Later God arrived on where he had sex with Mary to give birth to Jesus in human form.

                  Mormons also believe that some of them will rise to be elevated to Godhood, and rulers of their own planet.

                  Mormons believe that non-whites (not blacks) are so because in the Spirit World they displeased God. That Whites were pleasing to God in the spirit world, so he blessed them with white and delightful skin as they put it. And that blacks are the cursed seed of Cain who was cursed by God.

                  Read the book of Mormons (original teachings). And the historical statements by Joseph Smith and the Church leaders.

                  Don’t let this snake of Satan deceive you. Ever since the 1970s they have been trying to rewrite their own image and history. They are a cult.

                • teri_b

                  I certainly have been confused between what I was taught about LDS while studying apologetics and the statements of the believers. I am curious to see if any Mormons respond to your characterization of their religion.

                • Becky Lofthouse

                  WOW. I have been a practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for over 30 years and have never heard those statements. I certainly don’t believe in them as I have never heard them. It isn’t nice to bash others religion when you don’t actually know anything about it. I don’t bash others religions and appreciate the same courtesy in return.

                • Here are what some of your apostles have stated in regards to Mormon beliefs.

                  “Christ was begotten of God. He was NOT born without the aid of man and that man was God!” (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1:18)

                  The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully. (Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 158)

                  “We believe in a God who is Himself progressive, whose majesty is intelligence; whose perfection consists in eternal advancement — a Being who has attained His exalted state by a path which now His children are permitted to follow, whose glory it is their heritage to share. In spite of the opposition of the sects, in the face of direct charges of blasphemy, the Church proclaims the eternal truth: ‘As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be.'” (LDS Apostle James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, Ch.24, p.430 – p.431)

                  “As we stretch our imaginations to absorb the limitlessness of the creations of God we turn to a favorite song: If you could hie to Kolob in the twinkling of an eye, And then continue onward with that same speed to fly, D’ye think that you could ever, through all eternity, Find out the generation where Gods began to be? Or see the grand beginning, where space did not extend? Or view the last creation where Gods and matter end? Methinks the Spirit whispers, “No man has found ‘pure space,'” Nor seen the outside curtains, where nothing has a place. The works of God continue, and worlds and lives abound; Improvement and progression have one eternal round. There is no end to matter; there is no end to space; There is no end to spirit; there is no end to race.” (LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.250)

                  I hope that this may help you know what your faith believes whether you were taught them or not.

                • Oak9

                  Some of that is true and some of it isn’t but people usually like to bunch it all together so even the truth looks offensive. The whole God was once a man comes from “As we are now God once was and as God is now we can become” Be kinda crazy if a horse had any offspring that grew up to be anything but a horse don’t you think? We are children of God made in his image…
                  Yes we believe that God created the spirit of Jesus and Lucifer (Satan) but just as the Book of revelations tells us that there was a war in heaven and 1/3 of the hosts of heaven were cast out. (Including Lucifer “Son of the Morning” who became Satan the “Father of all lies”)
                  The multiple wives things isn’t worth the argument since it was practiced in the bible.
                  And as far as dark skin and curses there is a part of the book of mormon where a jewish family (olive skinned) breaks apart…. the descendants of part of the family (the laminites) get cursed with dark skin which helps the people distinguish between the two groups. There have been people in the church who talk about the curse of cain and egyptus etc… but this is really the part of the discussion where people begin to look beyond the mark and forget what is important. Christ.
                  There was a time when the priesthood was withheld from the blacks… but now they have the rights to all the same blessings as anyone. This same thing happened in the bible Matthew 15:21-28 a woman begs to be blessed and Jesus ignores her and later talks about how he is sent to preach to the house of israel. She worships and begs and pleads again and he says that he shouldn’t take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs. meaning that his meaning and purpose was for the children of promise the children of israel… the people God made a promise with in the old testament. The woman says … but even the dogs get to eat the crumbs that fall from the table right? And Jesus is so delighted with her and her faith that he blesses her according to her faith.
                  People have expressed their opinions on doctrine and have been wrong before and reprimanded. Other things recorded that these people says come from shorthand from peoples journals and are not necessarily direct quotes from the people. It is very easy to be led astray if you don’t have all the facts and you just listen to the people who are willing to say harsh and rash things.
                  It’s ignorant to call a church that bears the name of Christ “not christian” or a cult. People downplay “mormons” christianity by calling them Mormons. The church’s name is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. (corinthians 1:2 calls the members of the church there saints…. since we live in the latter or last days makes sense the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saints) Also talks about church organization in Ephesians 4: starting in verse 11…. but a great verse to pay attention to is verse 14! Because it talks about how cunning and crafty people are weaving 1/2 truths which are really full lies. Anyway… My response was mostly for Teri_b since she has been respectful and open rather than so closed minded and rash.

                • kim

                  Would you say that it is faith + works then? How do you know when you’ve got enough works? Where does your assurance come from?

                  For a Christian, works are a response out of gratitude. While it is true that faith without works is dead, it is grace through faith that I am saved. I cannot boast in any “good” or works because sanctification is also a work of His grace. I contribute nothing. It was finished at the cross.

                • T4Ut

                  Yes, I would say it is “faith + works” and “sanctification is also a work of His grace. I contribute nothing. It was finished at the cross.” It sound like a semantics difference to me. My works show God, myself and others where I stand, but I am only saved by the Atonement of Christ and his Grace.

                  “How do you know when you’ve got enough works? ” It can never be enough. I cannot work my way to Heaven. But as many people say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but do not forget that the road to heaven is also. One cannot get to heaven by chance. You do not live by bread alone by by every word of God. Not every man that sayth Lord Lord shall be saved in the kingdom of God but him that doeth the word of God. Mearly saying “Jesus is the Christ” does not save you. Did it save Legion? Even the evil spirits recognize the savior but it does not save them. By their fruits ye shall know them.

                  Where does your assurance come from?

                  From God through his Holy Spirit and nowhere else.

                  “I cannot boast in any “good” or works…” nor can I. God is the giver of every good thing.

                • The interesting thing though with Romney is that he was/is a bishop of the LDS church. He above others should have a very good idea of what the church actually does believe.

                • iKant

                  It’s unclear on what you base your conclusion, but I have a considerable amount of experience with the LDS Church and have found that its members, in large part, have a firm understanding of its doctrines.

                • teri_b

                  I am getting mixed answers from LDS members as to whether they believe in only one God. That is just one example.

                • Becky Lofthouse

                  I believe in one God and I call him my Heavenly Father. I believe in Jesus Christ, my Savior and Redeemer. I believe in the Holy Ghost.

                • The greatest confusion is that there are Mormons who crossed over from Christianity and still cling to true orthodox belief and mix in additional Mormon teachings, which we would call syncretism.

              • Jack B. Erhart

                And sends people to hell just as quick. A terrorist act if there ever was one.

              • carbonfootprints

                We believe in grace. Here is a beautiful article that very plainly explains what Mormons believe about grace. I think you will find it not so different from what everyone else believes.


              • As a Mormon, I would like to point out that this is something commonly misunderstood about our beliefs. We believe in grace and that without it, salvation would be impossible for anyone regardless of their works.

                The following is a quote from the Book of Mormon. Tell me if it sounds like we deny grace, “Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved.”

                We do, however, believe that we are rewarded for our good works at judgment, just like the Bible says, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may RECEIVE WHAT IS DUE HIM FOR THE THINGS DONE WHILE IN THE BODY, whether good or bad.” (2 cor. 5:10). But we believe it’s grace, and only grace, that get’s us to that point.

                As far as O’Donnell’s comments, what he said is not true, and he’s been spewing this kind of stuff against my religion for years. So long as MSNBC tolerates this kind of bigotry and ignorance, they get no respect from me.

            • It is what LDS desires for people to perceive that they are doing right. They may have “good works”. I am sure the 1978 change of position on welcoming African-Americans into their priesthood will be coming soon.

              • Hey Puritan …. yawn! Get a life already!

                • It is my prayer that you will have Life. Currently, you still seem to desire spiritual blindness instead of truth. I have quoted from the texts of Mormonism and there is no defense of them from any Mormon on this comment thread, just some name calling (persecution?) and throwing the Bible under the bus.

                  It is very sad, indeed. If only you would follow Jesus and denounce Mormonism, then you too may have Eternal Life as I do.

          • Well said Kim…spot on!!!

      • T4Ut

        Do you have a problem with people making up ABSOLUTE FALSEHOODS about your religion and passing them off to the entire world as the truth? I do.

        “Joseph Smith got caught having sex with the maid and explained to his wife that God told him to do it. 48 wives later…” You call this vetting?

        Joseph Smith was not a well to do man, he was harshly persecuted for almost his entire life for claiming to have seen the Father and Son while in his youth. He did not have a maid, nor was he out sleeping with anyone but his wife. I don’t think even Faun Brodie, the Tanners or any other anti-mormon literature you would like to site has gone that far (but you never know).

        While it is true he received a revelation about plural marriage, These “48” wives (where ever that number came from) were women who had themselves married to him after his death. Before you start to criticize that, why don’t you other Christians and Jews ask yourselves how many wives Abraham, Jacob or Solomon had? Where did they get them? Were they prophets? Did God sanction their marriages? So does that make all Christians and Jews polygamists?

        While I am NOT sanctioning, advocating, promoting or even desiring plural marriage and never will, the point is that marriage is ordained and governed by God. Has he authorized His people in the past to have multiple wives? It appears so. Does that have any bearing on my own personal marriage? Not in the least.

        Before you go there, No I am not as you call them a Mitt-bot. Personally I would rather see Santorum get the nod. Mr O’Donnell (like most others in the MSM) prefers to make vicious attacks on other faiths using lies and propaganda. But I will happily stand up and defend my religion from scurrilous attacks.

        It appears from some comments that others don’t really care if what he said is true or not as long as it advances their candidates position or their personal belief agenda. This is sad and pathetic.

        Thanks teri_b, Sober_Thinking and all of the others on here who have risen in defense against religious bigotry. Please know that I will also be a great defender of your religious liberty against all forms of tyranny as well. May God bless you all and advance the cause of truth!

        • teri_b

          You are very welcome.

        • kim

          @ T4Ut

          First, I did qualify that I had no problem with vetting so long as it is done in a professional way. I would agree that O’Donnell does not approach his job with any degree of professionalism at any time.

          Second, it is not religious bigotry to hold a different view and to state those views. If truth is relative, there is no truth. We should be able to have civil debate in matters of religion. Please don’t buy into the left’s narrative and buzzwords (i.e., bigotry), which are nothing more than political correctness (attempts at self-silencing censorship).

          You should defend what you find as an incorrect characterization. The media misrepresents Christianity all the time and we find ourselves having to clarify. This is what they do and they are biased. This should come as no surprise.

          One other thing, just because there was rampant polygamy in the Biblical record does not mean that God authorized it. There is no doctrine to support that. Abraham, David, and the rest were sinners just like you and I. When one reads the Bible closely, you see the consequences to these unsanctioned behaviors, just as I often suffer the consequences of my sinful behaviors. I find comfort in the Scriptures that God can use imperfect men for His glory, because God knows I am the chief of sinners! I need all of His grace that I can get.

          Have a blessed day!

        • “Do you have a problem with people making up ABSOLUTE FALSEHOODS about your religion and passing them off to the entire world as the truth? I do.”

          This is an incredibly ironic statement.
          I have a problem with people trying to completely re-write Christianity & pass it off as the truth. It’s blasphemy, as far as I’m concerned.

          The good news is that more people will actually look into Mormonism & what they learn will protect them from being taken in.

          It has nothing to do with “bigotry”. That’s an OFA tactic.

          • kim

            Kari, What is OFA? Just curious.

            • Calvin_02
            • Organizers For America. This is the “team” that the Obama campaign put together to drive his election in 08, but they were a strong presence at HuffPo, media comments sections & some of the lefty blogs (when needed) during the fight over ObamaCare.

              The tactics we see from the Romney camp are virtually identical- so much so that I’ve wondered if these were real Romney boosters or Kossacks messing with the people here & places like Hot Air.

          • What should disqualify Romney from the presidency is not the theological aspect of Mormonism (that is his personal right, in every way), but the historical subversive behavior of leaders & members of the early Mormon church. We haven’t learned our lesson from the US Communist Party if we think that suppression solves our problem. (Will we, one day, be defending a Shari’a Muslim’s bid for the presidency) Wikipedia has a very rough outline of these skirmishes, but are a starting point for where to look & for whom.

            Side note: In seeking links, I came across an interesting section in Mormonism A Historical Encyclopedia, edited by W. Paul Reeve & Ardis E. Parshall. It seems that one of the earliest arguments over the definition of marriage as being between one man & one woman occurred between Mormons. Could this be the reason Mitt pioneered the sanction of gay marriage; to broaden the definition of marriage and therefore open the door for polygamy (which his grandfather embraced).

            • T4Ut

              If you did some further digging, you might find that the LDS faith (along with the Catholics) teaches that homosexuality is a base sin. This is one of the reasons I am not a Romney supporter. He does not appear to be following the tenants of his own faith on gay marriage. You might also find that many in californication are up in arms because the LDS faith asked it’s members to uphold Prop. 8

              “Could this be the reason Mitt pioneered the sanction of gay marriage; to broaden the definition of marriage and therefore open the door for polygamy (which his grandfather embraced).”

              The LDS people do not want gay marriage or plural marriage to be made legal. Go back to your Hollywood versions of BIGLOVE, etc. and leave your tin-foil hat and other conspiracy theories there.

              • I am aware of Mormon support for Proposition 8. That’s one of the things that make the Governor’s actions so odd.

                FWIW, we gave up tv 6+ years ago & the last time I was in a movie theater was 1987. Hollywood doesn’t deserve my patronage (my apologies to CG, wherever you are!).

            • Kari; once again your intellectual dishonesty and historical ignorance is disheartening. What subversive behavior by early LDS leaders are you referring to? Are you referring to the fact that the Mormons were among the first abolitionist sects in the U.S. during a time when such a view was wildly unpopular, even in the north? Are you referring to the fact that Mormons established a small defensive militia (not uncommon in that day) after being persecuted incessantly and having their members murdered in mob violence? The historical reality is that the LDS church promotes a continuity and unity among its members, which made them an economic and political force wherever they settled. That was the reason that they were driven from the United States, not because of any true subversion. It is a fact that the LDS church’s doctrine states that they believe in being subject to the laws of areas which they inhabit. They even go so far as to state that the constitution of the united states is a divinely inspired document. Mormons have tended to be on the right side of history; not always but usually. I found your comparison of Mormonism to communism particularly amusing, since the LDS church is the only church that I am aware of that has declared that communism and socialism are anti-Christ doctrine inspired by the devil himself. I really don’t have an axe to grind here, since (and this is a shocker) I’m not a Mormon. I just hate dishonesty and bigotry. However, its pointless to argue with the ignorant, because they will persist in ignorance, or to speak truth to a liar who knows only deceit.

              Romney-Ryan 2012

              • First of all, I didn’t exactly equate Mormonism to Communism. I said that we didn’t learn that merely suppressing the Communist Party in the US (meaning a group that was against the government & trying to take it over) did not keep them from trying to act against us again.

                Yes. Joseph Smith court-martialed for treason as a result of the 1838 War (Missouri), the unrest at Nauvoo, Illinois, Joseph & his brother charged with treason against the state of Illinois, Brigham Young, the attempt to create Deseret, the ambush against federal troops (the Utah War), the Mountain Meadows Massacre & the Smoot hearings in Congress. Just to hit some of the high spots.
                You may spin it however you like. But to me, treason is a very serious thing.

                That’s true about Joseph Smith being opposed to slavery, but you neglect the “Lamanites” & their “curse” of dark skin. (which makes your claim about hating bigotry sound disingenuous)

                It seems that it is Mormons who seek to deceive Christians that there is any similarity between Mormonism & Christianity. It is apples & oranges.

            • If that is the argument you will follow, then that would disqualify everybody. The Crusaders fought and killed for the sake of Christianity. Wouldn’t you call that “historical subversive behavior” during that time? If your father killed somebody, should you be imprisoned for his crime? There are a lot that you we do not know about the events that happened during the early times of the church and I don’t think it’s fair for anybody to pass judgment on somebody because of the things that happened before his lifetime. Please do not judge the Mormons or Mitt Romney just by what you read. You may think they are factual but they are also clouded by the biases of the writer. Investigate the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Check how they live, how they conduct their affairs, how they serve others. You may be surprised to learn that they are some of the most law-abiding, freedom and God-loving, giving, and decent people you will ever meet. And no, we do not condone polygamy at any form nor do we intend to bring it back. Our church abandoned the practice in 1892 and you probably know we are not the first people to practice it. The prophets of old, Abraham, Jacob, David, etc., had multiple wives and it was sanctioned by God. We did believe it was also sanctioned by God during the time of Joseph Smith. Our church is now a monogamous church which believes, as Mitt Romney believes that marriage is between one man and one woman. If you want to find out more about our commitment to the institution of marriage, check this on “The Family, A Proclamation To The World.”

              • I want to know more about Mormons about as much as I want to know more about Wiccans, Scientologists, or Jehovah’s Witnesses. That is, I don’t.
                As far as I’m concerned, it is a cult led exclusively by false prophets.
                I certainly don’t hate Mormons (I don’t hate anyone). I pray that your eyes are opened to the truth.

                • “The reason Mitt Romney isn’t a candidate I would choose really has nothing to do with his religious beliefs for me, personally.” YEAH, RIGHT!!

                • Wow, now you can judge a person’s heart….this is amazing!

                • The problem I have with Romney is that he has no character and I think he’s dishonest. Maybe he is also dishonest with himself (which is even worse, imo, than being dishonest with others), but he will say anything & do anything to get what he wants, whether it’s approval, money, or a position of power that he has taken into his head that he wants. Honestly, he has nothing good to offer us. His “business experience” is really lame considering his record.

          • What is truly ironic is your accusations that the Mormons completely re-wrote Christianity. Unless you are a Catholic (who at least have some historical claim to having the pure faith) you are disparaging your own beliefs. Martin Luther, John Calvin and many of the other protestant “reformers” edited, reinterpreted and deleted swaths of the bible because the sections in question didn’t fit their particular worldview. From a sociological perspective, the LDS movement was ultimately based on resolving many of the inconsistencies and removing pagan elements present in Christianity, as were many of the reform movements of the day. All that the LDS hierarchy did was to take Christianity to its logical conclusion by taking biblical scripture at face-value. The Book of Mormon was merely an attempt to justify their very literalistic view. Mormons have every bit the claim on the title of christian as does any protestant sect.

            • Your comments seem to demonstrate a huge lack of understanding of church history and US history. The Bible, the church Fathers belong to the Church, not just RC. In fact, there is a debate as to when the RC actually started many state 600’s when Gregory the Great was bishop. Others lean towards 1000AD when there was the last great schism between the Eastern and Western churches.

              You can try to rewrite LDS history all you want, but the facts get in the way. If LDS really took the Bible at face value they would deny Joseph Smith and all his writings since he is by his own words a false prophet. I guess it just is too inconvenient for them to actually obey Scripture.

              Tell me, what swaths of Scripture had the Reformers deleted and what was their worldview.

              The Book of Mormon was merely an attempt to justify their very literalistic view. Wow, so the BofM came after LDS was in existence? Your statement makes no sense.

    • Here’s the clip in question.

      Oh, the power of youtube.

      • teri_b

        Thanks, Sal. That’s the one.

    • M_J_S

      Religious bigot? I didn’t hear what he said but:

      I am a Catholic convert (former Episcopalian) and have been called a religious bigot by any Mormon who disagrees with me. I find a religion that claims they are Christian against the 1 Billion+ followers who don’t agree with them or share their teachings humorous. Lets see Mormons est 1870s vice Protestants 16th century or the 2,000 year old Catholic Church? Hmmm.

      I’m not defending O’Donnell because he’s a brain dead drone, I’m just pointing something out.

      • teri_b

        Welcome Home! Now if we can only get the rest of the Anglican Communion to come back where they belong 🙂

        • I’m Anglican turned Baptist but before I call myself Baptist, I call myself a Bible believing Christian.. Baptist just happens to be the church I go to. I can empathise with you when people tell you you’re not a Christian, as I have been called a fake Christian by many Catholics. I think a lot of folks are going to find out that there will be some Catholics, baptists, methodists, episcopalians, anglicans, prespyterians and penticostals in heaven 😉

          • teri_b

            Christianity is dying out in Western Europe. They have stopped having babies, and so are relying on migrating Muslims to fill a work void. I am afraid that in a few generations, Europe will be governed by Muslims.

            For the preservation of Christendom, all American Christians need to stop the interdenominational bickering and celebrate what we uniformly believe. Our differences are not as great as some think. Catholics get accused of all kinds of beliefs that they don’t have. We need to band together to fight secularism and abortion.

  • Thank you, Larry O’Donnell, for pointing this out. Now put your dirty finger back to where it belongs.

    • teri_b


  • teri_b

    Larry O’Donnell is a Catholic. I am fairly certain, given what I know of him, that he doesn’t believe what the Church teaches. But he wants Romney to have to account for every doctrine taught by the LDS Church.

  • Sober_Thinking

    While I’m no fan of the Mormon religion, it’s unbelievable that a so-called “news anchor” or journalist is able to get away with this contemptable, biased, and ridiculous display of ugliness.

    MSNBC’s reputation as the worst of the news agencies out there remains intact. What a vile and depraved excrement factory.

  • kim
  • aPLWBinAK

    So Larry, when ya going to give us lectures about Obama’s muslim faith, you know the one that seeks to rule by global caliphate?

  • This is just the start. We all know how hypocritical the left is. While they NEVER EVER would tolerate questions into dear leader’s religious beliefs, and they ALWAYS take the professed faith of Catholics like Pelosie, Boxer, Kennedys, and Biden- and the Mormonism of Reid, the Islam of Ellison- it is fair game to mock Bible believing Christians and question those of other faiths. Puritan brought this up last night, and I see it’s already started now. Right on schedule.

    • StandingGround

      I remember telling my husband last fall about reading/hearing (maybe from Beck?) that BO and all his cohorts already have plans to blast Mormonism in every outlet imaginable. I heard there were documentaries, articles, programs, etc. all ready to go if R got the nomination. It seems if R has to spend untold hours defending his religion or answering ridiculous questions, he won’t have as much time to attack Maobama. Since the LSM is worshipping at BO’s feet, this shouldn’t be difficult to achieve.

      To me, both R & BO are cut from the same cloth as far as lies and ethics go. Seems Romney will begin to see how it feels to be challenged by the master of corrupt politics. It will be interesting to see which one will out-crook the other using religion or whatever means it takes.

      This is going to be nasty.

      • teri_b

        I can certainly understand not being a Romney supporter if you are uncomfortable with any of his positions or think he isn’t as conservative as you would like him to be.

        But what proof do you have that he has an ethics problem? He has never been accused of anything. He took no pay for the olympics or the governorship, and he gives a tremendous amount of money for charity. He has not been accused of being on the take.

        I think Romney is a decent man.

        • He might be a decent guy in his personal life, but in politics he plays as dirty as the rest of those who have nothing to stand on.

          • StandingGround

            “…nothing to stand on.” Well said. Thanks.

        • StandingGround

          No, he’s not as conservative as I wanted and believe our country needs but that wasn’t what prompted my comment.

          I am terribly disappointed in Romney. I held out hope up until this primary because I too always considered him a decent man and if he became POTUS, we could fall back on his character. The way he has run his campaign against the other candidates is what changed my mind and is one of the things that is going to make it difficult for me to vote for him if he gets the nomination.

          There is more than one way to be unethical rather than being brought up on ethics charges. Other ethical words that come to mind are honorable, upright, honest, truthful, having integrity to name a few. These all fall into the ethical category to me and can be applied to the way we conduct ourselves whether someone is looking or not. I have watched Romney run his campaign. Now I don’t think much of him and in some ways because of his actions, don’t still consider him a “decent man”. I can overlook some things but have a hard time with someone I can’t trust. Believe me, I’m sad it turned out this way.

          Just my opinion.

          • teri_b

            I understand that perfectly. I was so disgusted at Newt’s attacks on Bain Capital and also Perry’s that I turned away from them. I cannot stand the way Santorum is comporting himself now. I was upset at Romney also when the negative campaigning started, but you do have to separate what his PAC does from what his campaign does. He really and truly cannot have any influence over his PAC. I think they are ruining Romney’s chances. He would probably be a lot better of without them.

        • If you don’t know anything about Bain Capital, google that , or + Forbes magazine.
          It is just starting to break, but there is a Romney associated business called Solamere that will probably be coming into play soon.

          Here is the current head of the Texas Workforce Commission, who was also head of the Texas Republican Party setting the record straight on Bain not being “venture capital” (as they claim) & what the distinction is. His name is Tom Pauken & he is speaking to the Butler on Business show.

          I think he’s more of a mixed bag.

      • Make no mistake that if that were to occur the LDS church would mount a formidable ad campaign to defend itself. You are talking about one of the largest and most powerful sects in the world, with nearly 15 million members. They could easily mount a billion dollar add campaign to defend themselves, not to mention the church’s remarkable ability to mobilize its members. If the Obama administration wants to go down the road of exploiting the cancer of religious bigotry here in the U.S. they are in for a major fight. A fight which they will only win if those on the right, who out of ignorance cling to the prejudices of the past, don’t pull their heads out of their own butts and recognize that the real enemy is secular-statism.

        • For a person who “isn’t LDS”, you’re certainly defensive. What was that you said about dishonesty?

  • NYGino

    Aren’t these liberals the ones always yelling about the separation of Church and State? So why even bring this up if it is totally irrelevant? Only when it suits them.

    • Ciloman FreeBSD

      Oh so now you don’t want to talk about religion heh? After you guys spend the better part of 4 years trying to paint Obama from atheist to anti-christ, and even Muslim.

      But now you don’t want to talk about the Mormon religion, who by the way Romney really is a member of. What are you afraid people will find out?

      • KenInMontana

        Perhaps you’ve heard of or read this (doubtful though);

        Article VI, Paragraph 3; The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

        I know you guys only try to fall back upon the Constitution when you feel it can be twisted to suit your designs, however you’re out of your depth and over your head. Many here couldn’t care less about the President’s religion, we are focused on his blatant disregard for American law, not how he practices his faith (whatever faith that may be). I am more concerned that the Chief Executive follows the US Constitution, that he/she “know their role”.

        You might be familiar with this, or not, however you can contemplate back in whatever rock you crawled out from under;
        “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s”

        Bye troll.

        • Ah, good point. But Ken, (not to belabor the point, I promise!) isn’t it “fair game” (so to speak) when we have candidates who actually base their campaigns on their religious beliefs & commitment? And then there’s the thing with 0 being so indulgent of Muslims. It’s okay with some but not others?
          It’s kinda sticky.

          (Liberals- being the big supporters of and/ or atheists, themselves, don’t have a leg to stand on. If they believe that God doesn’t exist (& in all this “co-exist” carp), there shouldn’t be an issue for them.

  • 12grace

    Larry O’Donnell = yet another soros employee

    Isn’t it interesting how the so-called liberals that are supposed to be so open-minded and concerned about fairness can come out with something like this? Despicable.

  • JungleCogs

    November will be a historic presidential election; a Mormon vs. a Muslim.

    • When was the last time a major party ran a candidate for President that professed to being a non-Christian? (Obama claims to be a Christian, one cannot judge the heart, though his fruit is far from Biblical orthopraxy).

      I could be wrong, but I think Romney if he does win the nominee will be the first major party candidate that is a self-proclaimed non-Christian.

      • teri_b

        I think Mormons do consider themselves Christian. At least they say so in public.

        • In public, yes. In actual doctrinal beliefs, they are not (One cannot deny the Trinity which Mormons do and still be consider Christian). This is the scary part for this election season. The more exposure being done on Mormonism, the more people are going to awaken to the “weird” beliefs that they do have.

          Where Santorum’s belief system has been thoroughly vetted, Romney has gotten a pass that will bite the Republican party if he is the nominee.

          • teri_b

            To an atheist, any of us believers have weird beliefs.

            One of the weird beliefs of Mormons that people like to make fun of on TV is the “magic underwear”. I cringe every time I hear about that. I am a Catholic, and I wear a wool scapular around my neck. It isn’t magic. It is just a constant reminder to me of my faith.

            Haven’t we had a lot of presidents who were Unitarians? Back at the founding of our country, I think we did. I know the Mormons don’t believe in the Trinity, and Catholics don’t consider that Christian. But we don’t consider Unitarians Christian either.

            • T4Ut

              The “magic underwear” you refer to are the garments of the Holy Priesthood. Just as in the Catholic, Jewish or Protestant faiths the clergy wears special clothing that is to set them apart, the LDS people do the same. The difference is that we have no paid clergy. As Jesus taught there shall be no hirelings in the flock. Having a lay clergy, and having both men and women holding callings and positions in the church, those faithful wear the garments. We also have regular lives where we work and choose to keep our priestly vestments sacred. Do not cast your pearls before swine.

              Also it is really not helpful to make comments like “I think Mormons do consider themselves Christian. At least they say so in public.”. As if the LDS people have some hidden nefarious scheme and are purposely being deceptive and devious. From all accounts that would be the Islamists.

              • teri_b

                You are right. It didn’t come out the way I meant to sound. I never meant that they were being deceptive. I was thinking that they might give simplistic answers to complex theological questions, which is what I do when I don’t think someone is interested in listening. I am a Catholic. I have been accused my whole life of not being a Christian, which is insane since all Christians were Catholic up until the 16th century (with the exception of some heresies that came and went).

                I was not trying to slam your undergarments. On the contrary, I was expressing dismay at hearing it being joked about on TV. As I said, I wear a scapular, so I can relate to wearing a garment that sets you apart. Many Catholics wear one under their clothing. It is not weird, or magic.

                Thank you for calling me out on that statement. Mea culpa.

                • T4Ut

                  I appreciate the Mea culpa. I am not offended, merely attempting to set the record straight so that others will not be confused. God bless you.

            • I am unaware of previous presidents being unitarians so I do not know, hence why I am honestly asking the question.

              Most of the Presidents have been protestant if not all up to JFK.

              • teri_b

                John Quincy Adams comes to mind. I will check for others.

              • teri_b

                Okay, I found four. John Adams, J.Q. Adams, Millard Fillmore and Wm. Howard Taft were all Unitarians.

                I also know that many of our presidents, including Lincoln, did not definitely believe in the divinity of Christ, but they may have been considered Deists rather than Unitarian.

                • Thanks for the look up. Lincoln is a hard person to figure out. I believe he wrote about being a Christ follower, but had no desire to go to church. I just recalled that Thomas Jefferson was a Deist.

                  The biographer of John Adams states, “Adams was raised a Congregationalist, since his ancestors were puritans…as his family and friends knew, Adams was both a devout Christian, and an independent thinker” I would think that Adams son would not be far behind.

                  There is great debate and strong desire to rewrite the history of the Christianity of our Founding Fathers trying to de-emphasis their religious beliefs being fundamental to our founding as a nation.

                  One may be closer with Taft and Fillmore, but then again there was great latitude and division within the Unitarian church regarding who Jesus is.

                • teri_b

                  I think I recall that in some of Abigail’s letters, she was clearly considering herself Unitarian. Their Church seemed to have converted to Unitarian belief by the 1750’s.

                  I agree about the rewriting of history. That is why I didn’t mention Jefferson or Franklin by name. But Abigail’s letters kind of confirmed it.

                • I will have to dig deeper into it. That would be awfully sad if true. Then again, there was a split in the earlier Unitarian church so maybe there is a bit of hope :-))

                  Thanks again.

          • PapaLouie

            Are you saying that over three centuries of Christians before the 4th century were not really Christians because they didn’t believe in the “Trinity”. If they did, why did it have to be reinvented in the 4th century? Show me where the word “Trinity” can be found in the Bible? What gives you the right to add it to the Bible? Was this creed revealed to a prophet of God or invented by a committee, which mixed Hellenistic philosophy with scripture?

            Don’t call me non-Christian because I believe in first century Christianity rather than some “revised” brand of Christianity invented in the fourth Century under the authority of Roman emperors.

            • Wow, so we are going to go down this road, eh. Your best argument is that the word “Trinity” was not in the Bible so it does not exist. Well, Mormonism is not in the Bible either and so by your logic does not exist.

              PapaLouie, church history is obviously not a strong point for you. The church fathers did not invent the Trinity. The church fathers acknowledge what was already proclaimed in Scripture. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are three persons with one essence.

              Deut. 6:4 states that “The Lord our God, the Lord is one!” At the same time, Jesus claimed to be God. The Jews were going to stone him because of this claim. Jesus also commanded us to baptize in the trintarian confession of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Now it goes a bit deeper than that, you need to read Tertullian to fully appreciate the great work done here. However, by understanding that God is one and that God is Father, Jesus, and Holy Spirit, it makes sense to use the term, Trinity.

              Now, Mormonism rejects the very idea that Jesus is of the same essence as God the Father. Therefore, they fall in line with the very idea of Arianism which is a heresy dating back to the very years you seem to have a problem with. At least Trinitarians are people who go back to the 1st century. Mormonism can only go as far back as the heresy they believe in.

              • PapaLouie

                Sorry, your argument doesn’t work. I’m not the one saying that the Bible is “complete”. But those who do seem to have no problem with adding new doctrines, like the Trinity, to the Bible. What’s wrong with using the Biblical word “Godhead”? And where is “essence” defined in the Bible? If you could tell me, maybe I could accept it.

                • New doctrine…do you not comprehend what has been written on that topic. It is not a new doctrine at all. Talk about new doctrine…Mormon teaching adds more things that are not close to being Biblical like God being a man, having Mary as his wife, Satan is Jesus’ brother….the list goes on, all created 200 years ago. And you want to make a silly argument about something you refuse to read up on. Come on man…..

            • No, the word “trinity” is not in the Bible. Scriptures DO however show the triun nature of God, which is where the word trinity came from.

              1John 5:7
              For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

              1 Corinthians 12:4-6
              Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
              And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
              And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

              Luke 3:21,22
              When all the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also was baptized; and while He prayed, the heaven was opened. And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, “You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.”

            • teri_b

              Christianity was not reinvented in the fourth century. When Jesus established his Church, he said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. What you are saying would mean that it fell apart and its teachings were corrupted by the fourth century. A Bible believing Christian would not believe that.

              • PapaLouie

                A Bible believing Christian would believe the words of Paul when he stated that Christ would not return “except there come a falling away first”:

                2 Thessalonians 2:3 – Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

                The gates of hell did not prevail when Christ was put to death because death was not the end. He conquered death by being resurrected. In a similar way, the gates of hell did not prevail against Christ’s Church because it was restored as prophesied by Peter in Acts 3:

                Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

                The Bible clearly speaks of a time when there would be a “falling away” and a time when there would be a “restitution” of the things that had been lost. Why would you need a restitution if nothing had been lost? And why would the Church hold councils in the fourth century to define the Trinity if it was already clearly defined? Did anyone involved in these councils claim to be a prophet or claim to receive divine revelation when the Trinity was defined? The Bible doesn’t use the word Trinity, it uses the word Godhead. Why isn’t the Bible’s word good enough for you?

        • kim

          It is not how they self-identify. What matters is if what they believe holds up to what God says in the Holy Bible. It doesn’t.

          • carbonfootprints

            We believe the Bible to be the word of God. We study it as a part of our cannon. We believe the Book of Mormon proves the Bible to be true. I look forward to more exposure to my religion. It will give more people the opportunity to see what it is we really believe and not what detractors say we believe.

            • You also believe in “The Pearl of Great Price” and “Doctrines and Covenants” and that the US Constitution is divine.

              The Book of Mormon does not prove the Bible is true. The Bible does not need another book. The fact of the matter is that the Book of Mormon was written to express a “ministry” of Jesus to the Americas (which cannot be established as true) and help correct “errors” in the Bible.

              • PapaLouie

                Why does the Bible need 4 gospels about the life of Christ? Should we throw out the other three because one is enough? God said he would establish his truth by two or more witnesses. Why would you dismiss out of hand another witness of his truth? The Jews of Christ’s time used a similar excuse not to believe Jesus. They claimed to have the words of Moses and the prophets and didn’t need anything else. Do you really want to put yourself in their camp?

                • Your logic is befuddling. You cannot compare four different books with four different purposes, that by the way contradict the Holy Scriptures, with the Gospels. You might as well start equating a mouse is an elephant then.

                  I will gladly stand with Luther on this one with all the other Reformers as well. The Bible is the only divine Book on earth. Man needs to other to be saved!

                • PapaLouie

                  Why can’t the Book of Mormon and the Bible both testify of Christ in the same manner that four separate Gospels can testify of him? They are the testimony of two different groups of people (sheep of two different folds). Their teachings do not contradict each other but help to clarify each other.

                  The Bible is not one book. The Latin word for Bible means “books”. It is a collection of many books, written over many centuries, that testify of Christ. Why would you even want to limit God’s power to provide more testimony of Christ? That doesn’t make any sense to me. I haven’t read anything in the Bible to indicate that God has nothing more to say to his children on earth.

                  Jesus condemned the Pharisees for rejecting his word. They said they already had the divine words of Moses and the prophets and therefore didn’t need to be taught by Jesus. It is easy to see that their claim was wrong. So why do think your similar claim will hold up today? Instead of “standing with Luther”, maybe you should stand with Christ:

                  “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

                • Tell me exactly how the Book of Mormon clarifies the Bible. The people of the Book of Mormon do not even exist. There is not a shred of physical evidence found to support any notion of truthfulness in the Book of Mormon.

                  You are trying to build a strawman argument from what Jesus said and limitations of God’s power. First, Jesus’ claims and what the Pharisees were “refuting” is not exactly what you are trying to make it out to be, application wise. Second, Jesus did not say anything “new” but came in fulfillment of the prophecies of the OT.

                  The “history” of the origins of the BofM bears to mind that it came not from God. God is consistent. All Scripture is God-breathed; not already on some golden tablets that a person puts his head in to “translate” it (by the way only Smith saw them, lots a credibility there). Sorry this does not make sense and it is refuted by the Bible.

                  You are trying to sidestep the issue that the Book of Mormon has no legs to stand on by itself. It falls flat. The only hope is to try to impress upon people, twisting God’s Word to say that there was a need for another complete book.

                  I do stand with Christ, it is Mormonism that rejects His deity.

                • PapaLouie

                  You’re mind is like concrete: all mixed up and thoroughly set. By the way, the use of cement about 2000 years ago in the Americas is one of many evidences for the Book of Mormon that Joseph Smith would have had no way of knowing about. The extensive use of Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is another evidence. Joseph Smith knew nothing about this style of poetic writing found in the Bible and other ancient Hebrew writings. I could give many more examples but they would fall on deaf ears.

                  One last thing. If “Jesus did not say anything ‘new'”, Why do we have a “New” Testament? Yes, much of his teachings can be found in the Old Testament. But surely you agree that he clarified and explained those teachings and corrected many misunderstandings had among the Jews of the time. The belief of the Sadducees that there is no resurrection is just one of the errors he corrected.

                  You could get by with one eye but having two eyes adds depth perception. In a similar way, additional scripture can add depth and perspective to the Bible. Why are there so many different Christian religions if the Bible is so simple to understand on its own?

                • Wow, this is incredible. I guess everything needs to be explained. I was responding to your words. By the way, love the way you keep moving the goal posts around and around. Never really dealing with the stuff in front of you, just keep twisting Scripture around to try to make a point that does not make any sense.

                  In the context of your “evidence” regarding Jesus’ words to the Pharisees was nothing “new”. He was fulfilling OT prophecy but context does not seem to matter to you at all. He used the OT in explaining things and correcting false premises especially regarding the Sadducees, which brings an interesting point. Here is what Mormonism has to say about marriage in “heaven”

                  “In the divine economy, as in nature, the man ‘is the head of the woman,’ and it is written that ‘he is the savior of the body.’ But ‘the man is not without the woman’ any more than the woman is without the man, in the Lord. Adam was first formed, then Eve. In the resurrection, they stand side by side and hold dominion together. Every man who overcomes all things and is thereby entitled to inherit all things, receives power to bring up his wife to join him in the possession and enjoyment thereof. “In the case of a man marrying a wife in the everlasting covenant who dies while he continues in the flesh and marries another by the same divine law, each wife will come forth in her order and enter with him into his glory.” (Leaves from the Tree of Life, by Apostle Charles W. Penrose, 1897, Salt Lake City, UT.)

                  Hmmm, this is an exact contradiction to the very Scripture you are trying to use to argue your point.

                  Again, the irony is that you are trying to prove your point using the Book that is least used by Mormons in practice since it is believed to have huge amount of error. By the way, how does the Mormons know what is error in the Bible and what is not if all you quote it? In other words, how do you know what you are quoting is not the part that is in error?

                • There is not a shred of evidence for Noah and the Ark, Jonah and the Whale, Moses and the parting of the Red Sea, Joseph and the coat of many colors, Sodom and Gomorrah. There are even conflicts between archeologists as to the existence of King David. It is nonsense to deny the Book of Mormon for archeological reasons.

                • So let me get this straight, you are willing to throw the Bible under the bus which is one of the four sacred texts of Mormonism to help keep the BofM afloot?

                  Btw, it was not me, but it was the Smithsonian Institute that has stated clearly that the BofM has no value to add to archaeological digs in the Americas. And you have build yourself a strawman in order to defend the indefensible.

                  It is interesting that at least archaeologists use the Bible in helping discover things as well as these digs continue to support the historical facts in the Bible. Think Hittites.

                  Also, you just have to look at the Grand Canyon for your evidence of the flood and the mere fact of your existence speaks volumes to the Bible’s accuracy.

                • John the revelator was the last to have given revelation of Jesus Christ. Anything after concerning who Christ is, if it is a different Gospel is a false Christ and a false gospel.

                • You need to study Bible history better. Revelations WAS NOT the last book written. It was simple put in that order by the men who organized the Bible.

                • Hmm, conservatively scholarship puts the Book of Revelation in the 90 AD’s. What book are you supposing was later?

                • teri_b

                  Lisa, what is your understanding of which is the last book written? The Apocolypse (Revelation) was written appx. 64 A.D.

                  St. John lived a long life. He wrote it at the end of his years. The other authors were martyred earlier.

                  Am I missing something?

      • carbonfootprints

        He’s a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I think that means he believes in Christ. As a member of the church myself, I’d have to say yes he does. BTW, I’m voting for Santorum.

        • kim

          Ah, but you believe different things about who Christ is than what the Bible proclaims. Do you believe in the Trinity?

        • I would beg to differ. Mormonism does not hold fast to the Trinity which would then negate the idea that the Jesus they believe is the same as the Jesus of the Bible. Therefore, Mormonism is not Christian.

          • james stephenson

            by a difference in interpretaion many different faiths have come about, all claiming the title of Christian. protestant, catholics, and all other christian faiths claim this title because of a belief in Christ. if someone differs in interpretation of the bible’s doctrines and still belives in “Christ”, and in the bible, then they have historically had claim on the title “Christian”. mormons are not excluded. if you wish to distinguish them because of thier belief in a non-trinity Christ or thier belief in a Christ who went to the america’s, then the proper title for such a distinguishment would be something like “Non-Trinitarian Christians” or “Non-monocontinental Christians”. you cannot deny the title of Christian simply because someones interpretations differ from yours. what gives anyone the right to deny the title of Christians to anyone else?

            i suppose the best guideline as to who is Christian and who is not might be the statement “by thier fruits ye shall know them”. i’d even bet there are some muslims with more right to the title Christian than some of us.

            • teri_b

              That is a nice thought, but that is not how to distinguish who is a Christian.

              I fully agree that we Christians need to remember that our best witness is our fruits.

              Throw discussions of politics or religion into the mix, and that brings out the worst in people.

            • James,

              To hold to the “title” of Christian, one must actually be a follower of Jesus the Christ, revealed in the Bible. A Christian is not some simple assent to Jesus, if that was the case then we might as well call demons, Christians as well.

              Sorry, but for all the platitudes, it does not work that way. Jesus sets it out plainly. Jesus is THE Son of God, died as an atonement for sin, and rose again on the third day. Granted, there are deeper parts to the understanding like equating Himself to God the Father.

              Mormonism rejects the very first two (Son of God and being atonement for sin), not outright but through the twists and turns of their own statements. Good works will never get any person into eternal life, only those who testify to Jesus being who He stated to be.

              Therefore, Mormonism as much as they would love to hold to the title, “Christian,” cannot. It would be a disservice to the Lord, otherwise.

          • Calvin_02

            Looks like the text keeps getting scrunched together the more comments we make.

            It is odd that one would want to claim the Bible written fallibly when it claims to be breathed out by God, Himself.

            That seems to be circular logic. “The Bible is infallible because it says it is.” The Bible was written by MEN. Men are fallible. The Bible is inspired by God, but not infallible.

            On the other hand, BoM has not been able to hold under any scrutiny.


            The other aspect is that the god that Mormons worship is so weak that he/she is powerless of keeping continuity of what he has said over time. To have to rely on a prophet to speak and hope for the best that what he said is from god is not biblical. The very idea that one can say “thus sayeth the Lord” and have no hope that it will continue after that prophet retires/dies is a religion filled with hopelessness and uncertainty. When the Christian God speaks, His word will never come back void. What He says will happen will always happen.

            You’re twisting my words here. I’m not saying that there is no absolute truth in our religion or a great amount of untcertainty about what is true or not. I’m saying that not everything is certain. Like things in the Journal of Discourses (which, may I empasize again, is NOT doctrine). We know what is true through the Spirit and through the Phrophet. The general principles of our religion have been pretty consistent. Corrections to the BoM have not really changed our doctrine. We know that the BoM contains the Fulness of the Gospel. I know this to be true. I know that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God. I know that Thomas S. Monson is God’s Phropet on the earth today. I know that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the true Church on the eart today.

            As far as your comment about Romney’s membership in the LDS church hindering him, I really think the determining question will be “Have I been satisfied with this president’s record? Am I better off than when he started?” And this is where I will make an end of our discussion. If you want to learn more about my religion, feel free to make use of the links I provided earlier. (They’re somewhere on this page, maybe I’ll post ’em again later)

            • Thanks for the redo on the thread there. It was definitely getting tight.

              That seems to be circular logic. “The Bible is infallible because it says it is.” The Bible was written by MEN. Men are fallible. The Bible is inspired by God, but not infallible.

              When the Bible states that it is God-breathed, it is. That is not circular logic, it is what Scriptures claim to be, the very words of God. Is God not powerful enough to ensure that the Scriptures in their original are without error? The Scriptures always contended to be authored by God through man, not just man, hence inerrant.

              On the other hand, the National Geographic Society and the Smithsonian Institute have yet to find any collaborating archaeological evidence with the BoM, especially concerning any migration of the people of Israel to the Americas.

              I’m saying that not everything is certain.

              Then what is certain? You cannot even be sure that BoM is correct in its entirety. You have stated in one instance that the Journal is not doctrine and then on another instance say that the Journal may have doctrine in it, well which is it?

              The general principles of our religion have been pretty consistent. Corrections to the BoM have not really changed our doctrine.

              Let’s see if this works: Book of Jacob 1:15 and 2:24 it is stated,”…the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son…Behold David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.”

              Yet we find in the Doctrine and Covenants “David also received many wives and concubines and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they did not receive of me. David’s wives and concubines were given him of me…and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife…”

            • I did not want one long reply so I broke it into two. My humble apologies if there is any confusion.

              I know that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God. I know that Thomas S. Monson is God’s Phropet on the earth today.

              The problem here is that there is no prophet of God who has ever prophesied error. If someone did, this was a clear sign of being a false prophet and was to be rejected, tossed out of the church. Let’s check out some of these prophesies.

              For 50 years the Mormon church had taught that Adam was God (1852-1903). Mormon Edward Tullidge wrote, “Adam is our Father and God. He is the God of the earth. So says Brigham Young.” Then Spencer Kimball states, “We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations.” ~ It would seem that this is a major change of doctrine from one prophet Bringham Young to another.

              Joseph Smith “prophesied” that the Nauvoo Huse is to belong to the Smith family from generation to generation (forever) Doctrine and Covenants 124:56-60. Smith was killed in 1844. The Mormons were driven from Nauvoo and the house no longer belonged to the Smith.

              This is just one of many examples of Smith’s inability to correctly prophesies. According to Scripture, Smith is a false prophet/teacher who is condemned. If Smith was wrong on this one, what else was he wrong on, probably all of it.

        • Ciloman FreeBSD

          It means that the Mormon’s want to deceive people by using Jesus’s name. Mormonism is not Christian.

      • T4Ut

        “I could be wrong, but I think Romney if he does win the nominee will be the first major party candidate that is a self-proclaimed non-Christian.”

        The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. That is “non-Christian”? Are we really just faking? is that what you are implying?

        You are WRONG. What’s the name of your church? Does it have the name of Christ in it? Is it reallllly Christian?

        • The name has nothing to do with it. It is the core beliefs, tenants of the faith that draws the distinction of who is a Christian and who is not. Since Mormonism does not believe in the Jesus of the Bible being God, they are not Christians. It is simple as that. The best Mormonism has is a mix of Arianism with Free Masonry.

          • T4Ut

            “Mormonism does not believe in the Jesus of the Bible”

            I am unaware of any other Jesus, to whom do you refer?

            “Since Mormonism does not believe in the Jesus of the Bible being God, they are not Christians”

            If the LDS people believe the Holy Bible, and in Christ, and I have previously and emphatically proclaimed that we do, how then are they not as you say Christians?

            If your definition of being a Christian is based on your own personally defined qualifications, I think you may end up excommunicating most (if not all) of your own church and other Christians who happen to differ with you on some point of doctrine.

            Personally I take a man (or his church) at his word. If he says he believes in Christ, then who am I to doubt him or question his sincerity, even if his beliefs differ from my own on some point or other. Who am I to cast the first stone? Was it not Christ who said “agree with thine adversary quickly while thou art in the way with him”? I know there are differences in individual beliefs, but when the master comes he will put all this to rest.

            “It is simple as that.”

            “The best Mormonism has is a mix of Arianism with Free Masonry.”

            Arianism? So now we’re nazis?

            You may do better to promulgate the tenets of your own faith rather than generalize about what you think the beliefs of others are.

            • Wow, you have no idea what Arianism is? You may want to take some church history classes. It goes back to AD 300’s. Notice that what you are thinking of is spelled with a “y” not an “i”, very important.

              I do not have time to go into the great debates of Nicea or what the Nicean creed speaks to (by the way, all Christians can uphold the Nicean creed). However, Mormonism cannot and will not affirm the Nicean Creed based on Mormonism’s own doctrines.

              I am not sure by your statements if you fully know Mormon beliefs. Have you read all four of your divine books?

              Mormonism does not and cannot hold to the Trinity. It is why they are Arianistic in their belief system and not orthodoxy.

              • T4Ut

                No, I am not familiar with the term “Arianism”. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

                I have studied church history. I do absolutely agree that “Mormonism cannot and will not affirm the Nicean Creed based on Mormonism’s own doctrines.”

                However, “all Christians can uphold the Nicean creed” is absolutely positively WRONG!

                Are you suggesting that Peter, Paul and the other apostles were not Christians? Probably not, but that is what is implies. There is no possible way they could have held to a creed written long after they were dead, or are you suggesting they secretly wrote it and it was discovered later? Not likely either. It is my belief, based on what I have read numerous times, that they and their teachings and writings contradict the ideas in those creeds. That they were in fact written by uninspired men (Constantine was from all I have read a sun worshiper). As I look around I see a rational world. All things testify of Christ. If it is rational, then logically He who created it is also rational. I find the teachings of the creeds to be irrational and illogical if not mythological and perfectly suited to the logic and reasoning of the 10th to 14th century mind, but not a 1st century Christian, who beheld the living resurrected Christ in his perfect immortal body eating fish and honeycomb.

                • Seriously, you are going to try to argue that Christians before the creed came out would not support the creed?

                  You are in error if you think that Peter and Paul would deny the Nicean Creed. Talk about needing to read original sources. Please read the letters of Athanasius. Also, it would do you good to reread what exactly the Nicean creed proclaims and Peter and Paul’s writings. You will see that they are all in agreement concerning who Jesus is.

                  By the way, your apology is accepted. I do appreciate that you agree that Mormonism cannot hold to the Nicean Creed and agrees with Arius.

        • Unitarian Christian church uses the name of Christ, but they don’t believe in Jesus as the only begotten Son of God either. They don’t believe Christ is God the Son. Christian Scientists also use the name Christ in their title yet also do not believe in Jesus as the only begotten Son of God, God the Son. Just because an organization has the word Christ or Christian in it doesn’t mean it’s based on Jesus Christ who IS the Only Begotten Son of God, Who, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

      • Ciloman FreeBSD

        And who in Sainthood are you to just Obama’s heart? You Mammonist warmongering pig.

  • Jack B. Erhart

    I said this before, but it’s worth repeating here on this thread. The GOP kept from bringing out any aspect to any great degree about this subject. The Dem’s have no obligation to hold back, and will use it to a great degree.

  • Sandra123456

    Gee I wonder if LArry forgot about Harry Reid, Democrat, Senate Leader, being a Mormon, and then there is Orrin Hatch, as well.

    There are 15 Mormons serving in the House and Senate. Others: Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nevada, Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif., Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, and Rep. Eni Faleomavaega, D-American Samoa.

    Wonder what all the above think about old Larry’s comments about their religion.

    • teri_b

      If Romney becomes our candidate, and the Left proceeds to put Mormonism on trial, we need to fight back and call them out for their religious bigotry.

      I think this could backfire badly for the left. After all, they don’t dare say anything bad about Muslims, and their position on stoning women and gays is far worse than blacks not being admitted to the priesthood until l978.

    • None of the are running against Obama for the White House. Mormonism has been under the radar for so long that most Americans do not think any thing of it. Mitt Romney is going to bring it under the full scope of the MSM.

      If Obama was willing to throw Wright under the bus, do you think he cares who else he has to, including his pal Reid, in order to win the WH

    • StNikao

      Reid is as liberal as Romney. It would be interesting to look at the conservative ratings of the other Mormons.

  • CalCoolidge

    Wasn’t Black Liberation Theology invented in 1955 in Brazil?

    Didn’t Obama’s pastor teach that HIV was invented by the US government as genocide against black people?

    I think this is great. Every time they clamor about Momons, throw Wright in their face. Every time they ask for Romney’s tax records, throw Obama’s school records in their face – and maybe if we can get that Russian thesis, we can find out what he wants to be flexible about.

    • kim

      They won’t throw it back though. The GOP has this little problem called wimpishness.

    • Great, that is what we need…a competition on who has the most far-fetched beliefs of the two. How about if we prevent Romney from the nomination in the first place and we shall have no worries?

  • Trust1TG

    Romney’s Mormonism is a legitimate factor, just as is Obama’s Muslim apologetics and affirmation, and probable hidden membership.

    But Romney’s Mormonism is only one reason on a very long list of reasons not to vote for him.

    His documented corruption, dishonesty, flip/flops, business practices and radical social liberal social and political policies are adequate logical/rational non-religious reasons NOT to vote for Romney.

    Romney himself admitted there are plenty of reasons not to vote for him.

    I’m going to take his advice.

    When I look at the evidence and consult my own conscience and convictions, I cannot vote for Romney.

    It is insulting and shameful that he has been presented for nomination and a big strike against those who have endorsed him. What a shame for Rubio, Ryan, Haley and other so-called conservative hopefuls.

    We have seen the hearts of many politicians and pundits laid bare in this campaign.

    If Bachmann, Palin, West and Newt Gingrich endorse Romney, it will be all over.

    (Santorum already prostituted himself to do so in 2008)

    • Sandra123456

      So you are voting for Barry?

      • M_J_S

        No, We’re staying home.

    • Do you know of any Third party candidates worthy of voting?

    • Calvin_02

      If Bachmann, Palin, West and Newt Gingrich endorse Romney, it will be all over.

      (Santorum already prostituted himself to do so in 2008)

      I’m pretty sure Levin preffered him to McCain also.

      • M_J_S

        No, nice try. Levin endorsed Romney over McCain a few days before the election. He has continued to rail on Romney’s BS over the course of the primary.

        If Bachmann, Palin, West and New ENDORSE Romney, they will have “0” chops in the Conservative movement. If they say they will vote or help the nominee, that is something very different.

        This is why Rubio is a douche, he defended Romney’s “Conservatism” during the FL primary and then endorsed him.

        Look how DeMint handled it, he stayed out of it.

        • And Levin has repeatedly said he would support Romney in the general election if he’s the GOP nominee.

          • M_J_S

            You obviously don’t get it, so we’ll try it again.

            Endorsing and campaigning for Romney and defending his “Conservatism” NOW during primary races is one thing.

            Having Levin say: “If he is the nominee. I. will. vote. for him.” is an entirely different matter.

            Conservatives 95-5% despise Romney and the establishment more than they despise Obama. This is why, along with his horrid record, Romney will lose.

            • “Conservatives 95-5% despise Romney and the establishment more than they despise Obama.”

              I call BS. Please post your link that supports this data. I suspect it doesn’t exist. Every exit poll in every primary election so far disproves what you just said.

              • M_J_S

                Call whatever you want.

                States where Romney wins a state (BTW by BASHING his opponents from THE RIGHT?!) voter turnout is down. Look at the segments of the population he is getting support from.

                Romney’s entire campaign is being bet on the assumption Conservatives who have been insulted, bashed, and power bombed with the most negative primary campaign in modern GOP history are going to somehow jump up and come out for him? That’s where I call BS.

                Independents are going to Obama because Romney cannot pull them to his side which is inches from Obama’s side.

                • In other words, you can’t support the numbers you just provided…because they’re not true. Romney won in Wisconsin among tea partiers and was basically tied with Santorum among people that consider themselves “strong conservative”. If 95% of conservatives hated Romney more than Obama, as you suggest, that wouldn’t be true. The most important quality Republicans are looking for, according to polls, is the most likely to beat Obama. If 95% of Conservatives hated Romney more than Obama, as you suggest, they wouldn’t be voting for Romney in such high percentages as the most likely to beat Obama.

                  You obviously despise Romney, and you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but most conservatives would rather have Romney than Obama.

                  “States where Romney wins a state (BTW by BASHING his opponents from THE RIGHT?!) voter turnout is down.”

                  This isn’t true. In Michigan, which Romney won, voter turnout was UP. It’s just one example, and it’s easy to look up. Yes, voter turnout has been down in many states too, but not just in states Romney won.

                • M_J_S

                  Let me get this straight: You are bragging that Romney won his home state by less than 3% of the vote and they had to change the rules AFTER the election to award him 1 more delegate than Santorum? That’s a joke. OMG in his homestate? WOW.

                  If you do not have the GOP coming out in DROVES, have a FIRE to vote for the incumbent you’ve got a serious problem.

                  How much money is Romney outspending his opponents? 12:1, 8:1 6:1, 15:1, 20:1. He will not have this advantage in the general.

                  You’re a Romney-bot and will try and find every obscure point to justify the FACT that Romney is not generating any excitement in the base.

                  Looking for “someone who can beat Obama” is a laugh riot. You cannot defeat Obama with a liberal, because Obama IS a liberal.

                • “You are bragging that Romney won his home state by less than 3% of the vote”

                  *rolls eyes* You completely missed the point. You said voter turnout was down in all states Romney won. I gave an example of a state where that’s not true.

                  Also, in his ACTUAL home state, Romney won by 60%. But if you want to count Michigan, where he hasn’t lived for 40 years, as his home state, fine…then then you should count Virginia, where Santorum currently lives and where he was born, as HIS home state. So Romney won his “home state” by 3%, and Santorum didn’t even get on the ballot in his.

                  “If you do not have the GOP coming out in DROVES, have a FIRE to vote for the incumbent you’ve got a serious problem.”

                  I agree, but that’s an issue with all the candidates, not just Romney. Turnout has been down in many of the states Santorum has won as well.

                  “How much money is Romney outspending his opponents? 12:1, 8:1 6:1, 15:1, 20:1.”

                  So? That’s what the candidate that has been able to raise more money generally does. The ability to raise money is a good thing, not a bad thing. And it’s not like he doesn’t have anything to show for it; it’s not like he’s outspending them and barely winning. He’s got more delegates than the rest combined. 1.3 million more people have voted for him than the next closest candidate across all elections so far.

                  “You’re a Romney-bot and will try and find every obscure point to justify the FACT that Romney is not generating any excitement in the base.”

                  And there we go. You can’t respond to my facts, or justify your own, so you resort to this. I’m not a Romney-bot. I started this election for Bachman (and still hope Romney picks her as his VP)…then switched to Newt. When Newt started going after Bain Capital, it bothered me. That was the first time I really researched Mitt. And actually researching him, and not just believing what the conservative pundits were telling me about him, I became impressed.

                  I also have never disputed that Romney isn’t generating enough excitement in the base. None of these candidates are. Well, each of these candidates generate some excitement in part of the base, but none of them generate enough. This election is going to be tough regardless of who the nominee was going to be. But I’m not supporting Romney merely because I think he has the best chance to beat Obama, but rather because I think he is the best choice among the choices we have. You are certainly free to disagree, but resorting to epithets doesn’t accomplish anything.

                • M_J_S

                  Romney’s vote total is 4.1 million, Santorum/Gingrich is 5.1 million, RuPaul is 1 million+. So, in fact, it is 4.1M to 6.1 M

                  There is a difference between raising $ and taking the primary to negative-land attacking the true Conservatives from the Right.

                  Grow a pair. I was in the Navy you have no idea what an “epithet” is. If you think the weakest candidate is the best, that’s on you. Go back to Political Science 101 and begin taking back your educational distortions. Romney is the weakest.

                • “Romney’s vote total is 4.1 million, Santorum/Gingrich is 5.1 million, RuPaul is 1 million+. So, in fact, it is 4.1M to 6.1 M”

                  Lol. The only way this means anything is if Santorum, Gingrich, or Paul were not in the race, that 0% of their supporters would have gone for Romney. A recent poll among people that prefer Gingrich showed that they were split between Santorum and Romney as their second choice.

                  Here’s a link…since I can actually back up what I say with facts…


                  “Romney is the weakest. ”

                  According to you. A lot of conservatives disagree. I personally think the guy that can’t even get on the ballot in all states is the weakest candidate.

                • M_J_S

                  You continue to demonstrate your ignorance.

                  Santorum/Gingrich didn’t get on the ballot b/c the rules were changed just before the vote date by OH MY Romney-bot Gov. McDonnell and the Lt. Gov of VA who advises the Romney campaign! You can’t buy your way into Conservative support.

                  By all means, get your popcorn and watch as Romney loses…YET ANOTHER failed GOP play

                • teri_b

                  Well, at least try not to enjoy it too much if he loses.

                • I’m not ignorant of that allegation, but it’s irrelevant because Santorum wouldn’t have even had enough signatures even under the alleged old rule. And is a rule change also your excuse for D.C., Illinois, Ohio and other primaries where Santorum either wasn’t on the ballot (D.C.) or didn’t register for the full slate of delegates? How in the world is someone that disorganized going to beat Obama?

                • M_J_S

                  AGAIN, its like talking to a potted plant with you, organization is NOT something Romney can tout against Obama, neither is money.

                  Obama has $250MM+ and counting to spend, and the power of the entire federal government. How about Romney’s tax returns being leaked?

                  Obama has to win the west coast, the northeast, and the great lakes states and one other: CO or NV and he wins. He can lose FL and still win. (VA is still a swing state but will likely go GOP)

                  Romney MAY get close, but he’ll lose because he’s not going to make inroads into Obama’s turf.

                  This is why a fired up base is essential.

                • “organization is NOT something Romney can tout against Obama, neither is money.”

                  I disagree about organization, but I’ll give you money. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume you’re right about both. Here’s what you’re not getting, organization and money is not something ANY of the GOP candidates can tout against Obama. But organization and money can still help close the gap; and Romney clearly has the best organization and most money among the GOP candidates. That’s not the only reason to vote for someone, but it’s a legitimate factor among many to consider.

                  “This is why a fired up base is essential.”

                  Again, I agree. However, Santorum and Gingrich have done no better at firing up the base. Voter turnout has been down in States Santorum won as well. Gingrich temporarily fired up the base in South Carolina, but he squandered it with his talk of moon bases and whatnot. I do think, however, that the excitement level within the GOP will increase once we get to the convention, and once a VP is chosen. Will it be enough? I think it’s going to be close, but I consider the GOP to be the underdog at this point.

                  If you’ve read my posts, you’d see that I’ve agreed that this will be a tough election for Romney, as it would for any of the GOP candidates. As you said, Romney “may” close the gap. I believe he can close the gap more than the other GOP candidates could, and once it gets close, you never know what might happen. Maybe skyrocketing gas prices or increases in unemployment will put the GOP candidate over the top if they can get it close…I think Romney is the best chance to do it.

                  And the bottom line is this, I think Santorum is a terrible candidate, but I would support him 100% in the general…even put a Santorum sign in my yard. 😉 He’s been disorganized, he’s been undisciplined, he’s allowed the left to take him off message time and time again, but if he had gotten the nomination I wouldn’t have had sour grapes about it…I would have supported him 100% against Obama. Apparently you don’t feel the same about Romney, which as I’ve said all along is your right, but I think most conservatives will get behind the nominee.

                  P.S. – It’s getting hard to read these posts with such thin windows. 😉

                • M_J_S

                  It is getting hard to read, so I’ll keep it brief: I don’t have sour grapes, but I know we need a Conservative to win-we don’t have one so were hosed & need a plan B when Romney loses.

                  It will take an aggressive pro-active Congress to keep an Obama Second Term contained, and to impeach and convict him if required (likely). Losing in the general, will force to GOP to change or become obsolete.

                • I didn’t mean to suggest that YOU had sour grapes. I was just speaking generally about how I would react (or not react) to the candidate I think is weak.

                • I hope “organization” is what you would DEFINITELY NEED to run the country if you don’t want to look like a bumbling fool to the rest of the world!

                  Btw, to all you Book of Mormon detractors, go google ‘bible contradictions’ and start knocking the Bible with the same intensity you knock the BOM. That should keep you busy for the rest of your life and might take your mind off mormon- or book of mormon-bashing for a bit!

                • No surprise, for Mormons who supposedly love their Bible, you sure do through the Holy Scriptures under the bus a lot. No, you are not the first to suggest this.

                  One problem, there are apparent contradictions in the Bible and there are many actual contradictions in the Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price, etc.

                  What exactly are the errors in the Bible that needed Joseph Smith to fix again? Why follow a religious institution that claimed that if a man did not practice polygamy would be condemned but now ignore that teaching for convenience?

    • StNikao

      Strangely – Romney was promoting gay marriage on the east coast while his fellow Mormons were defending it on the west Coast.

      He was also funding abortion and gay adoption.

  • As we march toward the Tribulation we have the choice of a Muslim that’s trying to destroy and enslave America and a guy that thinks he can become God

    • PapaLouie

      Is the idea that a child of God has potential to become a co-heir with Christ and become god really a non-Christian concept? The Athanasian Creed was named after an early Christian who would disagree with you on that:

      “The Son of God became man so that we might become God.”
      — Athanasius of Alexandria (~298-373 AD)

      So would another famous Christian:

      “The only begotten Son of God…assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”
      — Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 AD)

      And so would the Bible:

      Psalms 82:6 – I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
      John 10:34 – Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

      Why are Mormons wrong to believe what the Bible teaches and what early Christians believed?

      • They did not mean literal gods, as in we could become gods of our own planets. They meant spiritually wise in the Holy Spirit to know God.

        • PapaLouie

          How do you know it’s not literal? Aren’t you just picking and choosing the parts of the Bible you want to believe? The Bible says we are created in God’s image. But people say he couldn’t have meant that literally. He must have meant his “spiritual” image. Why didn’t he say spiritual image if that was what he meant? When God calls us his children and heirs is he being literal? Or is he just speaking like an old lady would about her pet cats when she calls them “her babies”? When are we supposed to accept what God says in the Bible and when are we supposed to resubmit it for further translation?

          There is a lot of confusion between official Mormon doctrine and speculation. Our doctrine does not explain what it means to be a god. It just tells us that we are God’s children and can inherit an eternal life like he has. That is consistent with the teachings of the Bible, which say that we can become heirs of God. Should we only expect to inherit spiritual wisdom? Since God has created worlds without number, why would you be against inheriting one of them? It’s a vast universe out there and we will have an eternity to explore it. (Unless you would rather sit on a cloud and play your harp for eternity.)

          • I don’t just ‘like’ your rebuttals/responses, I ‘LOVE’ them. Thank you for articulating what, I’m afraid my anger at people saying things about my religion that aren’t true, I will not be able to do in such a cool, calm and collected way. I will confidently leave this thread knowing we have the likes of you, T4Ut, Carrie and others to educate those who need to be educated. Thank you.

            • If you hope that PapaLouie has the answers, you need more help than one can realize. You throw out the very source that PL is trying to use to argue for the Mormon cause. Maybe, the two of you should get together, get your “facts” straight and then come back and chat.

      • I’m not interested in a back and forth about your religion but you DO NOT believe what the Bible teaches. Same as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Scientologist and Muslims. They all say the Bible has been corrupted and they all have a ‘new revelation’ that completely contradicts the Bible.

        You guys have been running some pretty good PR the last few years but don’t say you follow the Bible.

        • james stephenson

          theoredically, what if the bible was corrupted?

          • Dead Sea Scrolls

            • james stephenson

              what about the new testiment?

              • I believe in The ALMIGHTY Creator. The One who holds the Universe together from the smallest cell or atom to the movement of the planets. The One who gives all life their next breath. I think He can keep His message to us intact. People have to say the Bible is corrupted when they start a new religion because it contradicts the Bible.

          • Instead of living in theory, why not just demonstrate that MSGT is in error and provide the evidence of corruption?

            • james stephenson

              it’s just a question, i have no interest in trying to prove wether or not corruption exists in the bible.

  • Uaint Down

    Haha what an interesting account of Mormon history (read false). When all else fails, attack your opponent’s religion by attributing a false account!! Go O’Donnell! woo hoo!

    • Trust1TG

      The most slide-rule careful, microscope-meticulous examiners of theology and doctrine are the Presbyterians. Here is their history and doctrinal examination of both Mormonism and Mohammedanism:
      Presbyterian Statement on Mormonism:
      Mormon History –
      Examination of Islam –

      One of the clearest voices in theology and doctrinal matters is the brilliant theologian, Dr. Albert Mohler. He has published numerous explications linked here:

      Another theologian who grew up in Egypt, explains the common threads of Mormonism and Mohammedanism: Dr. Michael Youseff –

      Here is a concise comparison between Christianity and Mormonism:;

      • kim

        I would have done 10 “likes” but it would only let me do one!

        • PapaLouie

          What a revealing comment. You would be willing to use dishonest tactics to tear down Mormons. The end justifies the means, right?

          • kim

            Huh? What dishonest tactics?

            Trust1TG merely provided links of explanation.

            Would you agree with me that there can only be one truth? And if there is only one truth, would you want to know that truth is so that you can be assured beyond a doubt of your eternal destination?

            There is a way that you can know that truth. It has been elucidated many places on this thread. I pray that you will come to a saving knowledge of the Truth. You cannot ever work your way to assurance. You must trust in Jesus Christ who is the author and finisher of your faith. (Heb 12:2) You cannot add to anything that Jesus did because He did it all on the cross and in His resurrection that conquered death. If you are saved, your assurance will come in the fact the God looks upon Jesus’ righteousness in your place.

            Praying for your salvation, peace, and assurance.

      • Thanks for the labor of putting up the links.

      • T4Ut

        Here’s an idea.

        Instead of getting your “FACTS” about “Mormonism” from the statements of others who likely have bias, prejudice and an agenda, try looking to the original source. or

        Kind of like checking out what the founders actually said and did, rather than what some dope-smoking liberal claims the founders said and did.

        You might be surprised. 🙂

        • Like this one:

          “We believe in a God who is Himself progressive, whose majesty is intelligence; whose perfection consists in eternal advancement — a Being who has attained His exalted state by a path which now His children are permitted to follow, whose glory it is their heritage to share. In spite of the opposition of the sects, in the face of direct charges of blasphemy, the Church proclaims the eternal truth: ‘As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be.'” (LDS Apostle James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, Ch.24, p.430 – p.431)

          Gotta love saying that God the Father was a man and now men can be gods themselves. But, I am sure you have an excellent explanation for this one.

          • james stephenson

            so what?

            • Just a simple response to T4Ut. For some strange reason, people who have done great work with excellent reputations in regard to studying Mormonism is not good enough. They must all be in error and if we actually go to the “source” we will learn that all is normal about Mormonism.

              There is nothing normal about Mormonism. Though it would seem you do not care, but one does wonder, “Is Joseph Smith a false prophet?” There is plenty of evidence from his own words which would indicate a yes. If so, then according to the Scriptures that Mormons claim to support, they are not to do anything with the man and reject his teaching.

  • Jaynie59

    The reason the Left is attacking Romney’s Mormonism now is because they hope that the Christians who are backing Rick Santorum will help them.

    I have no doubt they are absolutely right.

  • Trust1TG

    The strange thing about this election is that it is a battle of three books or ideologies:
    The Koran – incumbent.
    The Book of Mormon – Romney
    The Bible – Santorum and Gingrich

    And the two current front-runners feel ‘chosen’, entitled, destined, ordained to the office because of their fathers, spiritual (Joseph Smith who ran for president in 1844, Malcolm X/Mohammed, and biological. Both are trying to undo the martyrdom and losses of their fathers.

    Look up White Horse prophecy, Malcolm X-Obama, The Hate That Hate Produced, Nation of Islam.

    Mormonism is a confabulation – a mix of Judeo-Christianity and Masonry (a mix of spiritualism and Mohammedanism notions that were fashionable among the various men’s secret societies) rising up out of the Burned-out district of New York State, after a revival that was so emotion and signs/wonders-centered people became overly focused on feelings and miracles, spiritual power like the early gnostics. A number of denominations and spiritualist, even feminist movements arose at this time.

    Joseph Smith and friends were rogues, opportunists and crooks, and there is evidence and numerous witnesses who swore these men stole the basic premise and characters in the Book of Mormon from an obscure novel manuscript written by a Presbyterian minister.

    Smith was driven out of two states and finally murdered for his financial, spiritual and moral exploitations of the public and of his followers. His death occurred 6 months after he announced a run for the Presidency of the USA.

    Mormonism is about as legitimate as Romney’s conservatism, fiscal integrity and veracity.

    • T4Ut

      I realize from your tone (Hate, Hate and more Hate) that this is probably a waste of time, but here goes.

      “The strange thing about this election is that it is a battle of three books or ideologies:
      The Koran – incumbent.
      The Book of Mormon – Romney
      The Bible – Santorum and Gingrich”

      Interesting that you conveniently leave out the FACT that the LDS faith also uses and believes The Bible to be the word of God.

      “there is evidence and numerous witnesses who swore these men stole the basic premise and characters in the Book of Mormon from an obscure novel manuscript written by a Presbyterian minister.”


      “Mormonism is a confabulation – a mix of Judeo-Christianity and Masonry (a mix of spiritualism and Mohammedanism notions that were fashionable among the various men’s secret societies) rising up out of the Burned-out district of New York State”

      Go back to your anti-LDS literature for more “facts”.

      If you really what to know what they teach i suggest you look at their own website. or

      • kim

        We aren’t getting anywhere here by ad hominem attacks.

        We are all condemned to eternal hell (outer darkness for LDS) unless we can keep the Law perfectly. None of us can. Not now. Not ever. Everyone of us has broken each of the 10 Commandments in spirit or physically. We have all sinned and come short of the glory of God.

        We are all in need of God’s grace through Jesus’ completed work thru dying on the cross and His overcoming death through His resurrection.

        Only through Jesus’ work can we come boldly before the throne and have the assurance of eternal life in Christ. Thank God that He never looks at me to determine my worth but imputes Jesus’ righteousness to me even though I don’t deserve it.

        There is only one Truth and my prayer is that all shall find it.

    • StNikao

      Not hate – history, facts, evidence.

    • PapaLouie

      Rehashing old lies and disproven fables about Mormonism says a lot about your integrity. The conjecture about the Book of Mormon being derived from “an obscure novel manuscript written by a Presbyterian minister” was disproven some time ago when that lost manuscript was discovered. It had nothing in common with the Book of Mormon except the idea that the American Indians were descendants of the lost tribes of Israel. That idea was not original with that novel. It was common speculation back then. You imply that Joseph Smith’s murder is evidence to you that he was a “crook”. Does your logic apply to the murdered Jesus as well?

      • Sure, now you are going to claim that the Smithsonian Institute is a liar since they cannot and will not use the Book of Mormon in doing archaeological digs in the America’s. Why, because it is fundamentally unreliable in historical and geographical facts. But I suppose, this is a minor issue.

        I’m sorry, did Joseph Smith predict his own death? Did he have authority to lay down and raise his own life? Is he no longer in his grave? I’m sorry but trying to compare Joseph Smith and Jesus is at best foolishness if not outright heretical.

  • Linky1
  • demsaresatanic

    Unbelievable! I knew you Mormon haters would come out of the woodwork. Haters!

    • Who on here has said they hate Mormon? We have a differing opinion on what Mormons believe, but last time I looked, difference of opionion was not hate. You must belong to the left…

      • kim


        It is distressing to me that we are unable to debate our differences in a civil manner. For all the talk about returning to our founding…. this is what they did.

        It seems like we are Balkanized and take everything personally rather than using logic and rhetoric in an attempt to persuade.

        What has happened to us?

        • What has happened to us?

          I don’t know. I ask myself the same thing often.

          • kim

            I guess I do know the answer to that question… total depravity!

    • StNikao

      No hate, just facts and disagreement with the false doctrines.

    • teri_b

      Rather than call people haters, why don’t you correct any misstatements people have made? That would be more productive.

  • Gtrjag

    Mormonism is an apostate religion. There are numerous problems with the Mormon faith but the biggest is that they don’t’ believe in the deity of Christ. They believe Jesus existed and died for the sins of man, but they deny that he was in fact God in the Flesh. This goes directly against the Bible. John Chapter one says:

    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. . . He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
    But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

    Still, the biggest problem I have with Romney is not his Mormonism; it’s his Liberalism. If Romney was a Conservative instead of a big government northeastern liberal republican I would be excited about his nomination in spite of the fact that he is a Mormon.

    On a side note, while there are similarities in how Mormonism and Islam began, any further comparisons between the two is absurd. Mormons are not attempting to set up a global caliphate or kill all those who are of other faiths. They are just another false religion.

    • E. Lee Zimmerman

      Amen. I couldn’t give a flying Jesus what any candidate’s religion is. What I care about is Liberal policies destroying our country, of which Romney appears to be a supporter in kind.

    • PapaLouie

      False. Mormons do believe in the deity of Christ. We believe that he is the “Jehovah” of the old testament who spoke to Moses. He was also the creator of the world. Where do people get this nonsense about Mormons?

      Here’s a question for you. Do you accept the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Do you believe that God has a body of flesh and bones as he stated in Luke? If you don’t, then what did Jesus do with that resurrected body that Paul said was an “incorruptible” body that could never die again. Did it become corrupted and fall off, or do Jesus and his father share the same body? Trinity is a word that is not found in the Bible. Why do some claim that the Bible is complete but then want to add doctrines, like the Trinity, to the Bible? If you choose to believe in 4th century Christianity, that’s your right. But Mormons prefer to believe in 1st century Christianity.

      • teri_b

        Try Matthew 28:19 and John 15:26 for starters.

      • The word Trinity is not in the Bible, that’s true- but there are plenty of supporting Scriptures to show the idea that God consists of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, who are as one in essence of being God Almighty, but in separate persons. I do believe that Jesus rose bodily from the dead three days later, as He showed Himself to His disciples, and even showed His wounds to Thomas.

        I have a question. Yes, Christians believe that the Bible is complete, as the last revelation of Christ was given to John. What makes Mormonism any more christian than Jehovah’s Witnesses who also have the claim to be another revelation of Jehovah God? They claim different beliefs than Mormons and Christianity, yet they claim the same as Mormonism that they have another revelation of God, and that there’s is the truth. Which one is true?

        • kim

          I guess they use a “burning in the bosom” to know what is true. Yet the heart is deceitful above all things! That is why we believe in the revealed written Word of God (closed canon) as our one and only standard by which to measure everything else.

          * It just occurred to me that Smith was around during the time of the Romantics so romanticism in his theology makes sense.

        • PapaLouie

          James 1:5 gives the answer: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering.

          God answers in his own way and his own time. Just keep an open mind, study the issues, and don’t judge prematurely. Then God will give you an answer when you are ready to receive it. Those who jump to conclusions and are quick to condemn others will be judged by God in a similar manner. (For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged).

          Mormons would not disagree with your definition of the Trinity as you explained it above except the part about them being one in essence. I have no idea what that really means. And I’m not aware of any Bible passages that talk directly about God’s “essence” in such a context. If you know of such verses, point me in the right direction.

          Mormons believe that the three members of the Godhead are perfectly united and “one” in purpose. When Jesus prayed to the Father about his disciples in John 17, he said, “And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one”. Was he asking for them to become “one in essence” or “one in purpose”?

          • What I meant by one in essence, is pretty much what you mean. Like when Jesus says “I and the Father are One”. They have the same purpose, but they are different “stations” I guess you could say. Or hold different “offices”. But yes, like when Jesus prayed for his disciples, that we would be as one in the body of Christ, of the same purpose of obedience and love as Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit are as one. 🙂

          • I find it amusing that Mormons claim that we need to accept the Book of Mormon, the Doctrines & Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price based on their quoting from the one Book that they claim is full of errors and in desperate need of correction. The irony is amazing.

            On the other side, T4U(?) agrees that Mormons do not believe in the Trinity and yet papa says they do. I have quoted sources from Mormon apostles that claim that God was a man before becoming a god. That is not what the Bible states at all.

            There are no external evidences that give these extra books any credibility. Also, Mormon archaeologists as well as the Smithsonian Institute have proven the unreliability of the BofM in regards to its claims of peoples and cultures that supposedly inhabited the America’s.

      • Gtrjag

        I concur with ABC’s comment in its entirety.

        I am glad you believe the deity of Christ but I am not convinced that your church does, at least not in the way that I do. The LDS website states:

        “Before we were born, we lived with God in heaven as spirits. All of our spirit brothers and sisters were there, too—everyone who has lived or will live on earth including Jesus Christ. In this “pre-earth life,” each of us was an individual with a divine nature and destiny. God gave all of us the gift of agency, or the right to choose for ourselves. Because He is the Father of our spirits, we call Him our Heavenly Father.”

        This is not Biblical. Genesis 1;26 says that God breathed into man the breath of life and man became a living soul. Adam did not have a “pre-earth” life. His body and his soul were created and came into existence at the same time so it is with each and every one of us. This also seems to put Jesus and man on the same level, in that it implies that we are all sons of God and all the spirit brothers and sisters of Jesus. This diminishes who Jesus is. He is not just another spirit child of God. He is the only begotten Son of God who, like the Father has Eternal existence. Jesus said before Abraham was I Am.” This does more than establish his deity, it establishes eternal existence from eternity past to eternity future. He says in Revelation “I Am the Alpha and Omega the beginning and the endig, which is, which was and which is to come the Almighty.”

        • PapaLouie

          Spirit and body unite to form a living soul. in Genesis God put Adam’s spirit into the body he created and Adam became a living soul. What’s not Biblical about that? If you believe that body and spirit come into existence at the same time, how do you explain the birth of Jesus? Obviously Jesus existed before he was born and did not come into existence at birth. Your definition of Genesis requires at least one exception to the rule. The Mormon definition does not.

          Mormons believe that God created all things spiritually before he created them physically upon the earth. Our spirits existed before our bodies did and will continue to exist after our corruptible body has died. When we are resurrected, our spirits will be united with an incorruptible body and we will become a living soul that cannot die.

          Hebrews 12:9 – Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

          • Created all things spiritual first….where is that in the Bible?

            You are in error of understanding of Jesus. He is not a created being. He is God and it is through Jesus that all things are created. Scriptures are clear that Jesus is God, yet Mormons reject this very notion and fall into the heresy of Arianism.

            • PapaLouie

              PuritanD71, you twist my words as badly as you twist the words of the Bible. I did not say Jesus is a “created being”. I was stating the opposite. I was simply pointing out to Gtrjag that to believe that our body and soul are created and come into existence at the same time would make Jesus a created being, too, since he was also born into this world. But Jesus was not a created being. He was in the beginning with God. so his spirit did NOT come into existence at the same time as his body. That is fully consistent with Mormon belief. Why do you keep spreading falsehoods about Mormons? Mormons do believe that Jesus is God. We do not “reject this very notion and fall into the heresy of Arianism.” Nothing I have said even implies such a thing. If you think you have the facts on your side, why do you feel the need to lie and deceive to make your points?

              • Papa – I did not say you said…I am stating that Mormonism (which you seem to be claiming) believes that Jesus is a created being.

                I hate having to correct a Mormon on their own beliefs. You seem to have been a Christian prior to going into Mormonism (conjecture here). If this is the case, it is easy to see how you would assume that such a thing would hopefully align with Mormon teaching. This is sadly not the case. As I have quoted extensively throughout this thread, the Mormon church believes that God was a man before he became a god. Also, the Mormon god had sexual relations with Mary to birth Jesus and his brother Satan.

                Now for you to state that Jesus is God from the very beginning does not toe the Mormon line, do you agree that Satan is god as well? (BTW, I agree that Jesus is God). Maybe this will help clear it up, “Is Joseph Smith a false prophet?” If he is, then he is to be rejected. Let me give you a few of his own prophecies.

                Journal of Oliver B. Huntington vol 2, pg 166, quoting Joseph Smith “The inhabitants of the moon are more of a uniform size than the inhabitants of the earth, being about six feet in height. They dress very much like the Quaker style and are quite general in style, or the one fashion of dress. They live to be very old; coming generally to a thousand years old.” – too bad Smith never thought that man would one day land on the moon.

                Alma 7:10 – Jesus Christ was to be born, “at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers.”

                Doctrine and Covenants 124:56-60 ~ The Nauvoo House is to beling to the Smith family forever. Sadly, Joseph Smith was killed in 1844. The Mormons were driven from Nauvoo and the house no longer belonged to the Smith family. Conclusion: Joseph Smith is a false prophet.

                There are more directly from Smith himself. Take a look for yourself.

    • kim

      Still, the biggest problem I have with Romney is not his Mormonism; it’s his Liberalism. If Romney was a Conservative instead of a big government northeastern liberal republican I would be excited about his nomination in spite of the fact that he is a Mormon.

      This is the crux of the issue for me as well. I have supported Santorum and I’m not Catholic. I read somewhere that Evangelicals wish that Mitt acted more Mormon than he does. I’d have to concur with that.

      He has not been stable on abortion. People say he has changed but how do we know that? The man proves time and again that he speaks with a forked tongue. Does anyone really know who he is?

  • E. Lee Zimmerman

    Wow. Following this logic, one could argue that Islam was invented to excuse terrorism.

    • Sandra123456

      …and wife killing…and polygamy…gasp!

    • StNikao

      No, the Koran and Hadiths written texts pronounce Jews, Christians to be apes and swine and urge extermination or subjugation of all who resist conversion to Islam.

      How’s that for ‘evangelism’?

      The way of Islam is violence and death to infidels, but Islam is no kinder to its own people, especially women and children.

      There is a bombing a day and an average of 4 jihad attacks per day, plus numerous rapes and honor killings in Islamic countries.

      There have been 18,680 documented in newspapers, Islamic jihad attacks since 9/11/01.

      Weekly Jihad Report = Mar. 17 – Mar. 23
      Jihad Attacks: 47
      Allahu Akbars: 4
      Dead Bodies: 171
      Critically Injured: 462

      Monthly Jihad Report – March, 2012
      Jihad Attacks: 190
      Countries: 20
      Religions: 5
      Dead Bodies: 919
      Critically Injured: 1603

      These numbers do not count war injuries and deaths, such as Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria.

      • E. Lee Zimmerman

        Good to know.

      • Nuts, and I thought we were talking about a religion of peace//

      • Compared to the Pentagon’s casualties inflicted over the globe forcing democracy on people, disquising the Christian versus Muslim war?

        Scripture references on M-4 Rifle Scopes? Only removed when the locals found out about the Christian scriptures on American weapons.

        Marine snipers zeroing their rifles on Korans?

        So are the Muslims attacking or retaliating? Only history, written and research more than 50 years from now might find out the truth.

        Until then, when just one missile/bomb from a Predator drone can kill a Muslim wedding party – – I do think the U.S. has the highest body count in this Christian Crusade again Muslims.

  • PapaLouie

    Before other Christians condemn Mormons for unsubstantiated rumors about Joseph Smith, maybe they should review some of the history that connects Christians and Jews to our founders in the Bible. Paul teaches that Christians are adopted into the lineage of Abraham. Abraham had sex with his wife’s “maid”, Hagar, yet God did not condemn him for it. David committed adultery with Bathsheba and then had her husband killed. God did condemn David for that. Yet Jesus became a “Son of David” through Solomon and his mother Bathsheba. Would you condemn Jesus for being the descendant of an adulterer and polygamist? When we are quick to judge others, we end up condemning ourselves.

    • Personally, I couldn’t care less if every Mormon on the planet had multiple wives if that was their belief- but you can not twist and use Biblical examples to say polygamy is ok. God made man and woman to be joined as one, one man, one woman. But how much of what God made for specific intentions have fallen humans ever used for the specific purposes that He made them for? But does that mean even if something isn’t called a sin in the Bible is OK?
      God did not condemn Abraham for having a child (by the request of Sarah) by the handmaden Hagar no, but because of Abraham’s and Sarah’s lack of faith that all things are possible for God, our world has never known peace between Israel and Ishmailites. Millions upon millions of people’s blood has been spilled because of that lack of belief.

      Yes, Jesus’s earthly line is directly from Solomon, and before- but that is one way of a Gracious, Merciful God that He would choose earthly ancestors who include murderers, prostitutes and adulterers. For me, this is just a reminder that all of us are sinners, and yet God still used some of these “biggest sinners” in mighty ways. It gives one hope that while yes, I sin, I can, if I am repented, be used by God, just as He used a murderer to rescue His chosen people out of Egypt, that He used a harlot to save His servants from murderers in Jericho, He used a Christian persecuting pharisee and a murderer to give us a large portion of the New Testament Scriptures. If He can use folks like these, He can still use me.

      • PapaLouie

        You make my point for me. God has indeed revealed many of his truths through the ages using flawed humans. Moses was human and was not allowed to enter the promised land because of a sin against God. Yet he is considered one of God’s greatest prophets. If we were to reject every word of God in the Bible that was written by flawed humans, there would be nothing left. (Even the words of the sinless Son of God were written down by flawed humans.) So why does it make sense to you to reject the words of Joseph Smith because he had human flaws?

        There are lots of rumors and stories floating around, but isn’t it the official written doctrines revealed by Joseph Smith that we should be judging? I have found nothing in them that disagrees with the Bible. The Pharisees told Jesus they didn’t need him because they already had the words of Moses and the prophets. To say that you don’t need any new revelation or additional witnesses from God because you already have the words of the Bible puts you in danger of making the same mistake. Judge the doctrine, not the messenger.

        • Do you believe the Bible is without error? Do you believe it is the Word of God? Do you need other religious books to interpret what the Bible says or to strengthen your belief?

          “To say that you don’t need any new revelation or additional witnesses from God because you already have the words of the Bible puts you in danger of making the same mistake..”

          I don’t need anything other than the Bible to tell me all I need to know about God. The Bible is the Word of God, inerrant, complete and non corruptable. It was written by men yes, but by over 40 of them, spanning over 1000 years, yet all of it points to Christ. They all came from all walks of life, yet all say the same things about Jesus- He is the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of God, He is Lord of Lords, King of Kings, He is the Savior of the world. He is the Word of God, He quotes the Scriptures and that is good enough for me. Jesus, the Christ is the Word, and His word will never pass away. Heaven and earth will pass away, but His Word never will. Anyone who adds on or takes away from His Word, better for a millstone be put around his neck.

          I do not need to read any other book about God or Jesus, I go to the source of His Word, which is the Bible.

          That doesn’t mean that I don’t read other books, but if I want to meditate, to learn or to hear what the Lord is telling me- I go to His Word. All else is uninspired, without the Holy Spirit.

          • “Do you believe the Bible is without error? Do you believe it is the Word of God? ”

            I believe the Bible is the Word of God. If there are any errors, I attribute those errors to errors in translation that occurred afterwards, not to the original authors.

            “It was written by men yes, but by over 40 of them, spanning over 1000 years, yet all of it points to Christ. They all came from all walks of life, yet all say the same things about Jesus- He is the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of God, He is Lord of Lords, King of Kings, He is the Savior of the world.”

            I agree that the Bible points to Christ. I believe the Book of Mormon also points to Christ. It’s not that I “need” another book to teach me about Christ, rather it’s that I believe there IS another book that testifies of Christ.

            • But why need another book, when His Word testifies Himself? If you love someone and want to know more about them, do you go to them or do you go to someone else to see what they have to say?
              I’m not trying to be mean, I just don’t understand why folks need anything else other than just His Word.

              • “But why need another book, when His Word testifies Himself?”

                I agree that His word testifies of himself, and that the Bible is His Word. However, there are many denominations that interpret His Word differently. Those differences are enough that not too long ago some denominations wouldn’t even acknowledge other denominations as Christians. Now they do for the most part…that doesn’t mean they all of the sudden agreed with those other denominations, but mutual respect has been achieved. As greater understanding of my religion is gained, as opposed to much of the disinformation that is out there today, I believe (hope) that just as many of those denominations have softened towards each other and accept each other as Christian, that the same will happen with my religion. Because someone telling me I’m not a disciple of Christ is like someone telling me I don’t love my children. 😉

                Anyway, with respect to the Book of Mormon, as I said in my post, it’s not about “needing” another book; I don’t believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God because I need another book about Christ to study. For me, the same faith in Christ, peace, enlightenment, etc. that the Bible brings into my life when I study it and apply it’s teachings is produced when I study and apply the teachings of the Book of Mormon. I’m not claiming that the Bible is somehow deficient and needs backup; I simply believe that the Bible and Book of Mormon each provide a testimony of the divinity of Jesus Christ, and that my life has been enriched by studying both. In every congregation in our Church throughout last year we studied the New Testament during our Sunday School. And the year before that it was the Old Testament. Our belief in the Book of Mormon does not detract from our belief in the Bible.

                • God knows our heart. Thanks firefly, for your comments, and thank you for being civil and helping to explain more about your faith. God Bless. 🙂

            • teri_b

              I think what most Christians would have a problem with is if you consider the book to be revelation. We believe that public divine revelation ended with the closing of the Canon.

              • That is obviously a difference between our denomination and others. However, I’m not an expert on Catholicism, but don’t they believe the Pope can in some instances speak for God? And don’t the Catholics believe in other books that are inspired of God beyond what the protestants believe? After all, the Catholic Bible contains about 7 more books than does the protestant Bible. Did the Catholics “add” to the revelations? I don’t bring that up to suggest Catholics aren’t Christian, of course I think they are. But if that’s the reason why people exclude Mormons specifically from being considered Christian, I suppose I don’t really get it.

                • teri_b

                  Very fair questions. Regarding the Canon: the Catholic Church includes those books from back in the fourth century when the Canon was finalized. The Protestants removed some books. I believe Martin Luther also tossed out James and Revelations, but they have been put back in.

                  Regarding the Pope, if he speaks ex cathedra, we consider it definitive. That has only happened twice, both times on matters of dogma that the Church has always believed. Since we believe all public revelation is finished, even the Pope could not proclaim anything that wasn’t already part of our faith tradition from the beginning. When the Pope declared dogma on those two occasions, it was for purposes of clarity and teaching about what we believe. It was also to elevate a teaching in its importance. We have feast days where we celebrate the events spoken of in the dogmas.

                  As Catholics, we believe in private revelation as well. But anything revealed in private revelation (usually through prayer) is subject to human error and the Church never requires anyone to believe in what anyone claims to have seen or heard in private revelation. Even if the Church believed that Joseph Smith did in fact receive a visit from an angel, they would not change their teachings. The deposit of truth left to the apostles will never change.

                  If you were to tell me that the Book of Mormon adds new information to Sacred Scripture, that would make it hard for me to call it Christian. For instance, if it said that God started out as man as some have said on this thread.

                  Does that help at all?

                • Firefly, the Mormon Church is not a denomination. It rejects the Nicean Creed and the doctrine of the Trinity, which is enough to state that it is not Christian in orthodoxy no matter how they may emulate Christian orthopraxy.

            • I find it interesting though that Joseph Smith went on to even rewrite the KJV to correct such “errors”. And yet, we are told repeatedly that we need the Book of Mormon which again has failed miserably with archaeology (even Mormon archaeologist admit that BofM is useless as a resource). So, why do we need the Book of Mormon, the Doctrines and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price (which has the book of Abraham that is a historical embarrassment)?

          • The Bible has errors. The current books contained in it were not even chosen until about 350 A.D The gospels contradict each other in many different places. There are some excellent lectures from Yale University on I-tunes U about the New Testament.

            • The Bible we have today is as much as it was when it was written. There are errors yes, but grammatical errors, not doctinal errors.

            • Instead of speaking in such vagueness, why not demonstrate exactly how the gospels contradict each other.

              This should be interesting.

          • PapaLouie

            “Anyone who adds on or takes away from His Word, better for a millstone be put around his neck.”

            ABC, do you have a reference from the Bible for the above quote? I wouldn’t want you to have a millstone put around your neck for adding your own words to the words of the Bible. 🙂

            I think you will find that the millstone reference is about those who “offend one of these little ones.” Little children are alive in Christ and are redeemed by his atonement should they die before they are old enough to hear and accept God’s word. There are no little children in Hell. The Book of Mormon makes this clear. Are there still “Christians” out there who believe that a loving God would consign an infant or aborted child to hell for not being baptized? I think the millstone is also intended for such people.

            The injunction not to “take away from the words of the book of this prophecy” is clearly referring to the Book of Revelation and not to the whole Bible. The Bible didn’t even exist at the time Revelation was written. It was a separate book for many generations. There is simply nothing in the Bible to justify the belief that God cannot speak anymore or that he will not warn his Children from pending danger. In fact, the Bible says just the opposite:

            Amos 3:7 – Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

            • The “little children” reference is to all those who come to Christ. He is not talking about actual children in that reference, please check that context again. Note, earlier in the passage that Jesus has a child brought to him and informs his disciples that all who are to come to him are to have a faith as this child. The millstone is to be hung around all (read false teachers ~ Joseph Smith) who would persuade Christ’s followers to follow false beliefs.

              Who died and left you to decide where children go (where are your Biblical references there). No one knows for certain. Only our Lord does and we trust in His righteous judgment.

      • PapaLouie

        I also find it interesting that you would blame Abraham’s polygamy on his “lack of faith” and then accuse me of “twisting” scripture. Read Hebrews 11. Abraham is put forward as our greatest example of faith in the Old Testament. In Galatians 3:9, Paul says, “So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.”

        If Abraham lacked faith, where does that leave the rest of us? God never condemned Abraham or Jacob for having plural wives. But polygamy is only allowed when God sanctions it. That is clear from His words to David in 2 Samuel when He sent Nathan the prophet to condemn David’s sin:

        “Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.”

        God did not condemn David for having more than one wife. In fact, He reminds David that He had already given him “wives” and would have given him more. But He condemned David for taking that which did not belong to him and was not sanctioned by God. Mormons teachings on this point are consistent with Bible teachings.

        • I never said that God condemned David for having more than one wife- I agree, God showed David his sin against Him because of his covetedness, adultery and murder. I am not twisting words either when it comes to Abraham. I did not say that God condemned Abraham, and I am well aware that he is the forefather who has the place of honor on the wall of faith. However, what I did point out that it WAS a lack of faith, that Sarah reqested Abraham to lay with her servant in order that she become a mother. Abraham displayed a lack of faith when he chose to listen to his wife rather than God on that one. He is one of the most faithful men in the entire Word of God, but he, as well as Moses did display lack of faith on occasion as we all do.

          You can not argue that God’s intent was to have one man and one woman in a marriage, and that was His intent when He made Eve for Adam. He never condemned His people regarding polygamy, but He never condoned it either. There were consequences when it came to those who had many wives or concubines. That is what I am trying to explain. Consequences.

      • “God did not condemn Abraham for having a child (by the request of Sarah) by the handmaden Hagar no, but because of Abraham’s and Sarah’s lack of faith that all things are possible for God”

        You claim Mormons are twisting the Bible, but then you say this. No where in the Bible does it say that it was because of a lack of faith on Abraham’s part. That is your interpretation, and you’re certainly entitled to it of course, but that’s all it is. We have some different interpretations. Why not leave it at that and try to defeat Obama. 😉

        • Read my response to PapaLouie. I did not twist it. Sarah requested Abraham to go to her servant so she could become a mother. She was thinking of her age, thinking that she still did not have a child and became impatient. It was a lack of faith on her part, and his too because he did what she asked.

          I am not arguing for or against the faith of Abraham, as he is the model of faith when it comes to his following a God he did not know or had ever heard of when he left his family home to travel to a new land God said He would give him and his descendants. He had faith to follow wherever God led him, but there were instances when he relied on human events and that he took it upon himself to work things out (almost to his detriment) rather than waiting on God. As I said to Papa, things such as his having a baby by Hagar did have negative consequences as we have seen throughout history.

          • I agree with your interpretation as to Sarah’s faith, but your first statement was that it was because of Abraham’s AND Sarah’s lack of faith.

            In this post you said, “I am not arguing for or against the faith of Abraham”. That’s fine, I just took your original post to be suggesting that Abraham’s actions were a result of lack of faith. I don’t think they were; apparently you don’t either. 😉

        • Ciloman FreeBSD

          He is right. Abraham lack of faith was why he did that. His desperation, lead him to sin. That isn’t twisting the Bible, that is the Biblical truth. God then demonstrated to Abraham that nothing is impossible for God.

          • TJ

            Abram and Sarai’s sin outlined: Gen. 16:1-5

        • teri_b

          Firefly, some things are distinctly different, unless my assumptions are wrong (if so, please correct me). For instance, it seems like with Mormons, you believe that God changes his mind. How could that be? Also, if you believe that The Book of Mormon is revelation, there would be a distinct difference between Mormons and Catholics or Protestants.

          If you were to think about it like a Venn Diagram, a large circle would be Catholicism. Inside that, covering most of it, would be Protestantism in a smaller circle (they removed seven books from Scripture, and there are some doctrines they don’t accept). An overlapping circle would be Mormonism with a large segment of the circle on the outside, where you have beliefs contained in the Book of Mormon that we don’t accept.

          I can sympathize with you. As a Catholic, I was always taken aback by how I was treated by Evangelicals. But you are right, that is changing. Here is to hoping that you and I (and our respective faiths) can further our understanding of each other.

  • There’s no telling how many times O’Donnell’s head was forced into the toilet in school.

  • Spencer Streeter

    Insane! Not a single word of truth regarding Mormonism. Not even an exaggeration or embellishment of truth, but flat out false statements in every way regarding the Mormon church! MSNBC, what are you doing? This guy talks to chairs, spouts out completely false statements, and has his foot in his mouth surprisingly a lot. Why are you keeping him around? He doesn’t even get very good ratings!

  • StNikao

    Arianism or white supremacy was a part of Mormonism before 1978 when the ban on blacks as priests was rescinded. Polygamy was also removed around 1890 as it conflicted with US law. Romney’s ancestors left the US and established a colony in Mexico because of the law against polygamy.

    • Arianism is different from Aryanism. Arianism is a movement that clings to false doctrines of Arius who was a presbyter of a church in the 300AD’s. The doctrines of Arius deny that Jesus was of the same substance as God and holding instead that he was only the highest of created beings.

      Jehovah’s Witness and Mormonism both would agree with this.

  • Here are a couple of more wonderful Mormon quotes that the MSM will probably have a field day with:

    According to revelation, however, he is a personal Being, a holy and exalted Man, a glorified, resurrected Personage having a tangible body of flesh and bones, an anthropomorphic Entity, the personal Father of the spirits of all men. (D. & C. 130:22- 23; Moses 6:51, 57; Abra. 3:22-24; Jos. Smith 2:16-19.)”

    ‘It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God,’ the inspired word continues, ‘and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did.’ The Father is a glorified, perfected, resurrected, exalted man who worked out his salvation by obedience to the same laws he has given to us so that we may do the same.” (LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, p.64)

    • teri_b

      So Mormons believe that God was man?

      • kim

        Yes. You can theoretically become like Jesus who is a “Spirit child”. Jesus is a brother to you, not a unified part of the Trinity. This is my understanding from someone who used to be Mormon.

        • teri_b

          The Mormon I was debating with here said he (or she) believed in one God, and agreed with my definition of the Trinity. He/she also criticized me for saying that I didn’t think many LDS people understood their own doctrines. You may have just proved my point.

          • There are Mormons who do not know their belief system as well as they should. As with any religious belief system, there are many who are not aware. Some of this is intentional, especially with Mormons and JW’s. They desire to work on the newbies slowly but surely.

            • teri_b

              What is your background? You seem very knowledgable.

              • Thank you teri_b. I am a theologian and pastor. I deeply enjoy church history and studying religious beliefs. I have studied at Moody Bible Institute and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.

                • teri_b

                  It was refreshing to see an intelligent discussion on Arianism and the creeds. There were a lot of heresies that came and went during that first millenium. The truth will win out in the end.

                • The sad truth is that the heresies always repeat themselves and so they have with Arianism being a major one.

                  You are correct that such discussion is quite refreshing and I think at times more enriching than political ones.

            • kim

              That is consistent with what I have heard too. There is a progressive revelation as you work higher into their system. I think this is true with JWs and also Scientology. Sort of a gnosticism in a way.

              • Yes, it is part of the slow build so that the deeper they go the less they question and the more they accept. The sad part of all of this is that Mormonism and JW’s are more successful on those who attend church than those who do not.

                • teri_b

                  What would entice someone to join LDS when their beliefs are so foreign to Christians? If you are right that they are successful with regular churchgoers, that is indeed a mystery.

                  I could understand if people were vulnerable because they lacked a church family. Maybe it is the way churches have deviated from the traditional moral teachings. Seems like the LDS aren’t shy about sticking to their moral principles. The Catholic churches I have attended that have gone squishy are far less attended than the ones with the younger priests who energetically proclaim the faith and don’t shy away from teaching moral truths.

                • It is a good question. One problem is that churches no longer call for deep commitment to their communities. Each and everyone of us desire two things. One to worship, the second is to belong to a community. The community aspect for Christians should consist of a challenge to grow deeper in relationship with God (discipleship) and to grow by expressing this relationship to others (evangelism).

                  In general, this is no longer required but simply hoped for. Religious cults fill this void by offering a high demand to be a part of their community that espouses a “love” that many Christians should be the example.

                  The other aspect is that Mormonism and JW’s start small, sounding and speaking like Christians. They always start with the Bible, “demonstrate the problems with the modern Bible and church”, and then entice others with why their understanding is much clearer and better. This is done usually over the course of several visits.

              • Not really. Official Mormon doctrine is a little hard to pin down as there has been a lot of speculation. The King Follet Discourse was Joseph Smith’s final Sermon before he died and that is what a lot of the speculation is based upon.

                • Hmmm, so Mormon doctrine is based on assumptions. Wow, this is truly sad. Mormonism cannot even defend itself since there is no foundation, just speculation.

                  Since this is what you say Brian, then this is why it falters since it rejects the Bible as the only source of divine specific revelation.

          • Calvin_02


            Interestingly Mormons read the most about religion. Mormons, black Protestants and white evangelicals are the most frequent readers of materials about religion. Fully half of all Mormons (51%) and roughly three-in-ten white evangelicals (30%) and black Protestants (29%) report that they read books or go online to learn about their own religion at least once a week.

            I don’t think there’s a problem with Mormons understanding their own religion.

            • teri_b

              maybe you can clarify things for me then. Do the tenets of your faith evolve? Do you believe that God used to be man? Do men become gods and rule over their own planet or universe? How would a Mormom appeal to a Christian if trying to convert them? What would be so compelling that they would disregard 2000 years of Christian tradition to switch to something less than 200 years old and so unknown? Was Moroni an angel or a man, or both?

              • Calvin_02

                I don’t have much time to respond right now, to engage in a dialogue, so I would refer you to any of the following websites:

                The official Church website:






                Note that all of these websites are not sanctioned by the church, just is. I’m not sure whether the Maxwell institute is sanctioned by the church or not, but it may be, as it is a BYU website.

                I assure you, I am no dummy when it comes to my faith. There plenty of people more capable than me when it comes to discussing LDS doctrine. Not that I couldn’t answer your questions if I had the time, but I really don’t have the time. I appreciate your willingness to engage in a civil dialogue.

                • teri_b

                  Thank you for responding. Others on here have linked me to various sites; however, I am having trouble getting anyone to engage me directly. I think a back-and-forth would be more informative. I am certainly sympathetic if you don’t have time. Also, I can imagine how unpleasant it might be to engage if what you generally experience is a lack of civility or worse. That is not my style, and I have no animus at all towards members of your church.

                • Who do you ask if Santa Claus if real? Do you go to the Mall and ask the fat red man sitting on the throne? Do you go to the North Pole and look for reindeer droppings?

                  You don’t ask the brother’s Grimm if their fairy tales are real, and expect an honest answer.

                  Likewise, you don’t ask the propagandist if their propaganda is true.

                  Mormons can call a couch a chair, but that doesn’t make the couch a chair.

                • Calvin_02

                  I’m not asking you to take my word on my religion being true, only to take the words of actual members of the LDS church on what member of the LDS church believe. My testimony of the truth of my church can help you to feel the spirit, but if you want to know if the church is true, you can not rely on my testimony alone. “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” James 1:5

                • All cults members salute the Supreme Leader and drink the Kool-aid; only a fool comes to a cult breakfast and drinks the Kool-aid (coming and asking a cult member for the truth) sure, it is safe to drink, do you want some ice and sugar with it.

                • Calvin_02

                  Yes, we’ve been lying to people about what we believe since Joseph Smith; how else could we have 14 million members? It’s not like they read or anything. We’re just giving them Kool-Aid ® in the basement. That prevents them from doing any of that nasty reading. So yeah, you’re right: the best way to find out what members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe is to ask someone who is not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, esp. those people whose sole mission in life (it seems) is to tear down The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

                • 14 million – that includes all that are baptized, and have left the church, since it is nearly impossible for a person to remove his/her name from the cult’s rolls.

                  Mormon missionaries paint a “beautiful” picture of happiness and lollipops – Missionaries DO tell potential recruits not to read anti-Mormon material, or to get advice from their friends and families; that all non-Mormon do is paint a bad picture of the cult.

                  I was “recruited” in 2002 and went through the do not read the misinformation indoctrination, and I seen it happened in two years as a ward missionaries following up with all those recently baptized.

                  The truth really does set one free.


    • It makes far more sense than the nicene creed does. Do you not believe that Jesus is God and that he was/is a man like us? If God does not have “body parts or passions” (from the nicene creed not the bible) why does it say in Genesis that he created man in his image?

      • The same Bible tells us that God is Spirit and we are to worship Him in spirit. Also, Genesis speaks of God saying, “Let us….” Who is this “us”.

        Mormons do not believe Jesus is God, but a son from a sexual union of the father with a woman that also gave birth to Satan who is also Jesus’ brother. Are you going to argue that Satan is God as well?

        The other problem is that Mormonism rejects the doctrine of the Trinity and by doing so claim that Jesus is not God as you are trying to argue. You cannot have it both ways.

      • The same Bible tells us that God is Spirit and we are to worship Him in spirit. Also, Genesis speaks of God saying, “Let us….” Who is this “us”.

        Mormons do not believe Jesus is God, but a son from a sexual union of the father with a woman that also gave birth to Satan who is also Jesus’ brother. Are you going to argue that Satan is God as well?

        The other problem is that Mormonism rejects the doctrine of the Trinity and by doing so claim that Jesus is not God as you are trying to argue. You cannot have it both ways.

      • teri_b

        Jesus is God made man. Not a man evolving into God. Jesus claimed to be God and was crucified for it.

        Jesus Christ is God because He is the only Son of God, having the same divine nature as His Father.

        Jesus Christ is true man, Because He has a body and soul like ours, and derived His human nature from His mother.

        Hey, nobody said this was easy.

  • 911Infidel

    Looney Larry doing what he does best. Oh wait, remind me again, what Larry is good at? Oh that’s right, not a damn thing.

  • Ciloman FreeBSD

    And so it begins. The Republican party is finally going to be lead by the Mormon Cult. I guess Mammonism, and Fascism wasn’t enough.

    • teri_b

      Are you in a bad mood?

  • rsginteriors

    “please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks.” That’s laughable when you’ve posted this slanderous attach on the religion of 14 million people, including me. I’m too disgusted with this narrow-minded bigot to even respond to his comment. No you are not excused because your just sharing it. You are spreading it RightScoop without the outrage that should go with it. Should the guy lose his job? Absolutely. But an apology from his station would not even be enough.

    • teri_b

      Who are you directing your anger at? Are you mad that RightScoop posted this video? That isn’t fair. It is obvious O’Donnell is a bigot and needed to be called out.

      • NYGino

        I ask the same questions and make the same statement.

  • Winston7ok

    Are you proud? Mika, Joe, Brian, Brokaw..
    This is your guy.

  • hbnolikeee

    How told larry that? Was it Bill Clinton or John Edward? Perhaps he called the Kennedy family.

  • MortimusMaximus

    Now I know what Stewie’s gonna look like all grown up

  • AZ_Author

    For me, being a Mormon is not on the list of why I don’t like Romney. It might help shape him, but it’s the lying that I can’t handle, or the same ideas the Obama has in health care, or not being sure which platitude he’ll pick each day like picking out a shirt in the morning — those are the things that get me about Romney.

    If I thought the next president had the best policies but he/she happens to believe that pink elephants dance in the sky every Tuesday when there is an eclipse, I’d have to wonder how they got to the best policy part, but they still got there somehow. However, Romney’s policies don’t seem to exist and/or seem stable and he lies.

    I can’t support a liar on the right anymore than I can on the left.

    The bigger problem I see is how anyone else can and I think Romney could very well lose to Obama.

    I’m praying for the House and Senate to be on the right in 2012 and that the Supreme Court throws out the Obamacare.

    Lord, hear my prayer.

    I’m Catholic – in the 7% per O’Donnell.

  • Another great Mormon teaching:

    “In the divine economy, as in nature, the man ‘is the head of the woman,’ and it is written that ‘he is the savior of the body.’ But ‘the man is not without the woman’ any more than the woman is without the man, in the Lord. Adam was first formed, then Eve. In the resurrection, they stand side by side and hold dominion together. Every man who overcomes all things and is thereby entitled to inherit all things, receives power to bring up his wife to join him in the possession and enjoyment thereof. “In the case of a man marrying a wife in the everlasting covenant who dies while he continues in the flesh and marries another by the same divine law, each wife will come forth in her order and enter with him into his glory.” (Leaves from the Tree of Life, by Apostle Charles W. Penrose, 1897, Salt Lake City, UT.)

    Yep, they may not have polygamy here on earth but according to Apostle Penrose if a man happens to have a wife who dies and then he marries another, then he will have two wives with him in his glory. Please note “his glory” instead of being in the presence of Jesus. Gotta love having it both ways.

    Yet the Bible states, “And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are aconsidered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, (Luk 20:34-35 ESV)” This here must be one of those convenient errors that Mormons have found in God’s Word.

  • stevenbiot

    I’ll take a Mormon over a Marxist any day of the week. Mormonism isn’t responsible for the murder of millions. Also, having a slumber party with 48 wives, in my book, gets us the muslim vote.

    • Actually, quite a few people were murdered by Mormons in the early days of Joseph Smith & Brigham Young.

  • Here is another quote that should make Christians shudder:

    “In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there is no hell. All will find a measure of salvation” (Apostle John Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, p. 216)

    • stevenbiot

      Mormonism? When are we going to draw the line? The cutoff time period for taking a religion seriously needs to be a few thousand years ago. This new-age stuff is getting ridiculous! Seer-Stones? Come on!

    • teri_b

      Sounds like modern day watered-down Christianity. My mother-in-law, a Lutheran, insisted on telling my children that there was no hell (contradicting me in front of them!). I had to ask my husband, what gives? He said he thought a lot of Lutherans believe that.

      • It would seem that your mother-in-law is not a part of the Missouri Synod.

        • teri_b

          You are right. I’m going to get this wrong. ECLA ??? Help me here.

          • More than likely. The ELCA is generally known for its liberal ideas toward Scripture. The one Lutheran church in my town that was associated with ELCA split off and is joining others that have separated themselves from the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America over the latest approval of ordaining gay clergy.

            • teri_b

              My husband’s best friend (and best man) is a Lutheran pastor. He split off as well. I was really proud of him for standing up for what Christ taught.

  • stevenbiot

    Mormonism is modernized Christianity.

    • Not exactly! Mormonism is more like Jehovah Witnesses, they both cling to the heresy of Arianism. As bad as most US modernized Christianity, none deny the deity of Christ.

  • skibuddy

    Are you kidding??? You expect people to be respectful when you people aren’t??? Amazing…double standard as usual!

  • james stephenson

    my comment is more toward the doctrine you pointed out. i see it no more or less strange than believing that we have immortal, untouchable souls that were made by an all powerfull, all knowing being. from a third person perspective all of us Christians look nuts.

    if the church has 14 million+ members, is still growing, and the converts don’t run and scream when they join then maybe some of the so called facts about them hiding evil behind the guise of Christianity out there are a little skewed. it does sometimes happen to “facts” overtime.

    bullies in school yards mock others to make them feel better about themselves. same concept applies to religion and polotics. if you want someone to believe in what your saying don’t smear the other guy, that just says to me that you lack enough confidence in yourself or what you believe in to convince me it’s right. i would more readily listen to the clergy who said nothing negative about others and only promoted Christ than i would the guy who is trying to “save” us from the wicked by telling us what they heard about or read about them. likewise i would vote for the candidate who never ran a single smear campaign. to bad it’s an impossibility.

  • AJ Clifford

    I have created a petition for this please go to the petition and sign if you agree: