And by the way, anyone want to respond to my questions a few posts down?

Quecat - Just a few quick thoughts. Paulks letters to Timothy were at what point int Bible Chronology? Were they last? Or did others write after Paul? Because if the canon was complete at the Pauline epistles no more need be written according to your interpretation of his words, correct? Or is it perhaps more likely that Paul was pointing that the scriptures of his day contained all one needed to ...more

Quecat - Just a few quick thoughts. Paulks letters to Timothy were at what point int Bible Chronology? Were they last? Or did others write after Paul? Because if the canon was complete at the Pauline epistles no more need be written according to your interpretation of his words, correct? Or is it perhaps more likely that Paul was pointing that the scriptures of his day contained all one needed to preach, not that the canon was closed. And bear in mind he says since Timothy's childhood. That would have negated most of the New Testament. Obviously Paul was not teaching that the canon of scripture was closed, he was simply saying Timothy had what he needed to preach. Additional accounts of Christ's ministry are not considered superfluous (or do we not need Mark, Luke and John). Instead we are greatful for "two or three wintesses". In much the same was, the BoM provides another witness of Christ.

Also, the scriptures have many warnings against false prophets. But funny that they warn specifically against "false" prophets. To judge by the churches of today you would think it was simply "prophets" we had been warned against.less

While I stand by what I said to kick off this post, let me regress to a point that this article inspires. I have a friend who started grad school about a year ago. At the time, Mitt was starting his run for the Presidency. At a mixer to kick of graduate school and meet fellow schoolmates. This friend introduced himself and in conversation it came out that he was Mormon. A few in the crowd then ...more

While I stand by what I said to kick off this post, let me regress to a point that this article inspires.

I have a friend who started grad school about a year ago. At the time, Mitt was starting his run for the Presidency. At a mixer to kick of graduate school and meet fellow schoolmates. This friend introduced himself and in conversation it came out that he was Mormon. A few in the crowd then made a point of changing the subject to the Presidential race and explained that as Evangelical Christians they would never support Romney's bid. It was a non-starter for them simply based upon his religion. This is an attitude I have encountered frequently. Now, for starters, I find such an admission at an event where people were just getting to know one another completely boorish. How rude to start of ones entire acquaintance with someone by basically telling them in front of their peers that they find their faith so repugnanrt that it would impact their voting for public office. That's like, "hey, nice to meet you, oh you're a Mormon?, yeah, hmmm I find that faith so crazy I wont for Romney. Good luck this semester." What a way to alienate someone right off that bat. And if you were hoping to have any influence over that person, what a way to obliterate any such ability. But what trioubles me more, and what is more germane to this discussion, is that I find such views are often influenced by the very same lies, half-truths and deception that are being described in this article. I can live with the fact that Mitt lost (despite the fact that I worked tirelessly to get him elected). But what nags me is that he may have lost partly as a result of false ideas and dishonesty on the part of some voices in the Evangelical community. That's what keeps me up at night.

And for the record, no, I did not support romney merely because he was Mormon. I worked for him, was impressed, and despite his daliance with more moderate views, I found him to be a better candidate than other (although I liked Fred a lot).

So I hope those that spread the lies and half-truths that influenced the kind of evangelicals I described here are nejoying what they are reaping. McCain has won the nomination. Huckabee has lost (I knew through the grapevine that Romney would support McCain not Huck). It's now public. So I would like to ask those who helped Mitt's demies with such deception, what did you accomplish? Are we better off or worse off as a nation? and did the cause of Christ gain or suffer ebcause you allowed a Social Moderate to win? Babies will die by abortion when Romney would have appointed conservative to the S.C. McCain won't. So what did you reap?less

I can't speak for all Mormons but I never mind an honest critic. Those who come to us with questions and doubts, or even grave reservations shouldn't be villified. It would be hypocritical as I once had many of the same objections. What I don't appreicate are the lies, half-truths and slander offered by some. Frankly even a proper objection delivered from a position of hate or deep ...more

I can't speak for all Mormons but I never mind an honest critic. Those who come to us with questions and doubts, or even grave reservations shouldn't be villified. It would be hypocritical as I once had many of the same objections. What I don't appreicate are the lies, half-truths and slander offered by some. Frankly even a proper objection delivered from a position of hate or deep mistrust isn't likely to be seen as an objective dispute. But please bring your questions and concerns and open heart.

Thanks for this essay.

As an example of what I described above, my wife and I watched "The Mormons" last night on PBS. It is often critical, often praising. But I didn't mind hearing objections. Admittedly not all LDS see things this way. Much as not all Evangelicals appreciatehonest critics.

I pray we (LDS or Evangelical) all approach or learning with an open heart, fair-minded and just toward others not of our faith.less

GMG - Here is a direct quote "At the risk of sounding disrespectful, I can get that same feeling under a number of circumstances and they have nothing to do with God." Certainly seemed like you were implying something much more trite than the a spiritual mainfestation. I guessed indigestion. My bad. Maybe you meant heartburn :-) Kidding. GMG I realize we don't need to agree here....more

GMG - Here is a direct quote "At the risk of sounding disrespectful, I can get that same feeling under a number of circumstances and they have nothing to do with God." Certainly seemed like you were implying something much more trite than the a spiritual mainfestation. I guessed indigestion. My bad. Maybe you meant heartburn :-) Kidding.

GMG I realize we don't need to agree here. I wasn't aking issue with disagreement I was taking issue with a tone that IMO too often seems smug and pious. But thanks for responding to my statement. I'll be hapy to take you at your word.

May I jump in and respond to your question to Hesadanza? You said "And I'm really confused by your assertion that God commands you to perform vicarious works for the dead - if they didn't exercise free will in their own lifetime by accepting Christ's sacrifice, performing good works, and going through temple ceremonies, how can they be saved after death?"

No need to be confused GMG. A small percentage of the earths population from all time has learned of Christ's sacrifice for them. This is just a statistical fact. Billions have lived and dies without so much as hearing the term Christ. Vicatious baptims provides for them and others to accept Christ. What do you think happens to such individuals?

Hesadanza, sorry but I may have assumed incorrectly that you are female. Somehow I got that impression. I guess I should stick with "they" rather than "he/she".

And BTW, can't someone PLEASE respond to my points about how the Bible was compiled and why the canon was never intended to be closed. I made them a few pages back. Or can I assume you all agree?less

FT - The point is, would see it as worthwhile to debate someone who also thought that the movie The Matrix was real? Or someone who felt that some races are inferior. Or someone who thought that God does appear on tortillas? So my frustration is bourne out of the fact that I am trying to hold a sincere debate with someone who presupposes he can know the thoughts and intents of my heart. How are we...more

FT - The point is, would see it as worthwhile to debate someone who also thought that the movie The Matrix was real? Or someone who felt that some races are inferior. Or someone who thought that God does appear on tortillas? So my frustration is bourne out of the fact that I am trying to hold a sincere debate with someone who presupposes he can know the thoughts and intents of my heart. How are we ever going to get anywhere with soemone who holds an opinion that a simple appeal to logic would render IMPOSSIBLE. It certainly speaks to your an bias that toward the LDs that I see as completely insurmountable.

And I have faced this in real life. I work with a guy who, when we met, kindly told me he thought my religion is false. I thought he might have been sincere until I found out that he also believes certain races are inherently bad. So now it's pretty obvious the guy isn't a sincere critic. He's just a bigot and a crackpot.

I'm just hoping to one day find a sincere critic so we can have an honest, open, obejective duiscussion.less

FT - Yes, your comments did make me throw a fit. You said: " Although this might make ep1433 thow a fit ;-) I know you have NOT investigated as you claim. You either did not look hard enough, or you did not look with an open mind. " So Hesadanza, beware, FT has an ability beyond any human being to read and perceive your thoughts. FT, maybe we should send you to Washington so you ca...more

FT - Yes, your comments did make me throw a fit. You said:

" Although this might make ep1433 thow a fit ;-) I know you have NOT investigated as you claim. You either did not look hard enough, or you did not look with an open mind. "

So Hesadanza, beware, FT has an ability beyond any human being to read and perceive your thoughts. FT, maybe we should send you to Washington so you can help the government discern the thoughts and feeling of the terrorists.

FT that you say such things isn't what bothers me. What bothers me is such comments prove you completely incapable of objectivity. And objective individual trying to understand and learn wold not make such a sweeping assumption in complete ignorance of facts.

It makes it all to easy to dismiss critics when they begin with an assumption of either stupidity ("you either have NOT investigated") or insincerity ("or you didn't have an open mind") on the part of their adversary.

Now any fool knows that FT has NO WAY of knowing such things. Had he said "In my opinion, I think you haven't studied this" he could at least remain on logically sound ground. But to claim to "know" anoters heart is rediculous.

The question then becomes, "why does he say such things if they are unknowable?". In other words if it is IMPOSSIBLE to know the thoughts and intents of Hesadanza's heart unless you are God, why still claim to know them. If FT claims HE DOES know such things, he is either 1.) lying or 2.) trying to manipulate and score debate points by making confident statements that can never be proved or disproved. I suppose there is a third possibility. FT are you God?

Now FT is a lawyer so I could make a joke about knowing he is lying by his lips moving but I'll refrain. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and just asssume he is trying to be manipulative.

FT, you claim I get too angry about such stuff. But should't I be able to hold a Christian to a standard of intellectual honesty and sincerity?

What I see when we debate here is not overt sins of swearing or harsh blatantly unkind words (or at least not often). No, that would be obviuosly un-Christian. Evangelicals maintain their piety by simply lobbing insincere, smug comments at the LDS and think such covert attacks allow them to maintain their pious status. I'm sorry but I think your words betray your hearts. But that's just my opinion.less

The kicker is this, you Evangelical folks don't think we are spending eternity together (as I'm LDS) and I'll I can say to that is A-frickin men! And if I won't be around you then it must be heaven where I am going to be. I am sorry. I realize this rant is a bit childish but seriously folks, I have never seen such a bunch of smug comments in my life. The condescension is so ...more

The kicker is this, you Evangelical folks don't think we are spending eternity together (as I'm LDS) and I'll I can say to that is A-frickin men! And if I won't be around you then it must be heaven where I am going to be.

I am sorry. I realize this rant is a bit childish but seriously folks, I have never seen such a bunch of smug comments in my life. The condescension is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

Let’s review your very “Christian” behavior:

Summathetes: “Your ignorance regarding the Scripture profuses from both sides of your self contradictory professions.”

Topekan has apparently decided HE is capable of determining if Hesadanza believes in Christ or not after reading all of one posting wherein she said she believed in Christ.

GMG then compared Hesadanza’s claimed manifestations of the Holy Ghost with indigestion.

Servent then referred to a sincerely provided quote about our faith in Christ that Hesdanza offered as “LDS babble”. Wow, thanks for the consideration servant.

FT found it fitting to compare such efforts as you are each making with Paul (not McCartney by the way).

Is it possible my little rant here is just as snide as some of your comments? Perhaps, but you’re definitely giving me a run for my money. But if any of you are hoping to represent your faith well, you have failed miserably. Hesadanza tried repeatedly to respond to questions with sincere responses. And again and again you ignored the responses and moved on to other questions. IMO your responses with an unnecessarily smug and completely lacking in sincerity.

FT – you couldn’t even be original at all. You practically lifted your comments verbatim from other discussions with me! I am telling you it was eerie how similar your words are. Are you sure you aren’t Borg or something.

So go ahead and turn your very pious noses up at me and ignore my comments. I’m sure you won’t take them to heart. I may be a jerk, but if you folks are the ones holding the keys to true Christianity then methinks someone needs a designated driver.less

FT - Why do you say garbage like "If the LDS church was not what it claims to be, would you want to know?" That is the faith debate equivalent of playground taunts. It is the kind of junk that is used to influence weak minded individuals. Plastic banana, that's what it is. Total wax fruit stuff. Artificial, ya know? It's just posturing for debate points. If you are sincere i...more

FT - Why do you say garbage like "If the LDS church was not what it claims to be, would you want to know?" That is the faith debate equivalent of playground taunts. It is the kind of junk that is used to influence weak minded individuals. Plastic banana, that's what it is. Total wax fruit stuff. Artificial, ya know?

It's just posturing for debate points. If you are sincere in your discussion and exercising any amount of objectivity you would also be willing to consider that YOU may be the one who is wrong. But more importantly, the statement is meant to imply that some fools out there would rather be a part of something knowing it was false. How condescending!

If you are the least bit objective you would realize that in every faith there are those who are knowledgeable, those who are sincere, those who are intelligent and faithful. The LDs faith has many such members but at the same time does not hold a monopoly on such people. Many Evangelicals are of the same ilk. And yet in both faiths there are those who are ignorant to their beliefs and still faithul and there are even some who probably do not believe but still claim the faith. But statements like yours make me think you must see the LDS differently. Which makes you not only seem un-objective, but also unfair, unkind, and unintelligent (methinks I may be off FT's Christmas card list now).

I can't imagine anyone who can look inside their heart and honestly think that a faith of millions of members contains either fools or liars and not a intelligent and faithful person among them. Such thinking completely strains logic.

Sorry, I just call em as I seem.less

And FYI, I was referring to the posts I made earlier about the colelction of books that ios the Bible. But again I'll bet my lunch money no of you even touch it.

Hesadanza - I would warn you not to waste your breath with some of these folks. If you make a valid point (as I feel I have done below) it will be completely ignored. They love to claim that "mormons are afraid of the truth". What is it Evangelicals are afraid of in responding to valid, substantive points like those I made below? FT might be an exception but even he has a bit of a one...more

Hesadanza - I would warn you not to waste your breath with some of these folks. If you make a valid point (as I feel I have done below) it will be completely ignored. They love to claim that "mormons are afraid of the truth". What is it Evangelicals are afraid of in responding to valid, substantive points like those I made below?

FT might be an exception but even he has a bit of a one track mind regarding the Book of Abraham. FYI,no fear FT, I'm still working on a response. Seems you didn't like my joke though.

It's all just a silly little game called "try to stump the Mormon". Funny thing is, I rarely find any of these questions challenging (FT's BoA stuff being an exception) and I would consider myself only moderately knowledeable about esoteric LDS doctrines. Many LDS folks I know are much more informed. And oddly enough some the Evangelicals here seem to be extremely well informed about these same esoteric LDS doctrines.

FT, the thing about your Lectures on Faith comment is that if Joseph Smith had made contrary comments in other scources wouldn't it be reasonable to assume he was misquoted? Those lectures are typically written by scribes and are not canonized LDS doctrine (perhaps for very apparent reasons). There is nothing nefarious here. It seems you're simly stretching to make an invalid point based in obscure records. Why refer to them at all?less

To claim that only 66 books were ever written or inspired by God is 1.) to be ignorant to history and 2.) simply a tool to try and control doctrine and claim to posses all knowledge rather than leave the window open to other inspired books. i don't necessarily consider this to be an intentionally evil act but more an act of convenience.

And the version of the Protestant Bible isn't what is important, I just reference the KJV as it is common. But only Protestant Bibles limit themselves to the books Evangelicals consider the ONLY word of God. Anywhere else in the world in many Christian faiths outside of Protestantism you would use slightly different books.

And FYI, if I were to have listed all the books ever considered inspired or canonical I would have filled several pages. Certainly some of these books are the same as the books we currently have but with different names or differetn scribes. But many of them have additional information that the early church found worthy. The Catholic church and others have many of these book in their libraries and...more

And FYI, if I were to have listed all the books ever considered inspired or canonical I would have filled several pages. Certainly some of these books are the same as the books we currently have but with different names or differetn scribes. But many of them have additional information that the early church found worthy. The Catholic church and others have many of these book in their libraries and many are avilable and published. The important point here is that the KJV Bible is not the sum total of all scripture or minimally there is no scriptural basis to claim so and much evidence to the contrary. Do I as a Mormon find the KJV Bible ot be perhaps the best collection of early Christian writings and older Jewish writings from the Middle east? sure. But i do not believe (and again the facts are on my side) that the KJV Bible is the end and only possible word of inspired text from God.less

To Summathetes and others - I've never understood where the evangelical contention that the Bible is the sum total of all scripture comes from. It certainly isn't Biblical (meaning the Bible does not affirm that Genesis to Revelation is all the srcipture ever written). The Bible that many Christians use isn't even the same as the Bible Catholics use which has additional books (macab...more

To Summathetes and others - I've never understood where the evangelical contention that the Bible is the sum total of all scripture comes from. It certainly isn't Biblical (meaning the Bible does not affirm that Genesis to Revelation is all the srcipture ever written). The Bible that many Christians use isn't even the same as the Bible Catholics use which has additional books (macabees etc). The Bible is just what it's name means, books (or Holy Books if you like). And some collections of these books are different than others. If you were to start a library of ALL books that the early Christian church considered canonical then you could fill a library. At one time or another the following books were considered canonical and/or inspired: The Works of Pilate, Song of Songs, Sirach, Odes, Baruch, and on and on. In fact many of these books are still considered inspired by Christians in some parts of the world (Eastern Orthodox for example). And additionally, many christians in America don't consider Song of Solomon inspired. So to assume that the KJV Bible is a book delivered by God himslef as the only words he has ever inspired is to be completely provincial (to your protestant perspective) and ignorant to the history of inspired text. If you had been born in a different time or even a different country, same time, you would use different books and think nothing of it.

Also, the NT warns us to beware fo false Prophets. This is good advice. But evanegelicals seem to ignore the fact that if there were to be no new Prophets, the advice would have simply been to beware of Prophets. Calling Joseph Smith false doesn't make it so. I believe it merely puts you in the same company with those who said the same of Christ and went so far as to charge him falsely with heresy much as you charge Joseph Smith falsely.less

zenodaddy - Mitt is always willing to tell people that he believes deeply in his faith, that he is proud of his faith, etc. What he often gets are questions regarding specific doctrines. This is rediculous! Can you imagine a press conference wher JFK is aksed to explain the transubstantiation of the eucharist, or where George Bush is asked to explain the Nicene Creed as defined by the Third Ecumen...more

zenodaddy - Mitt is always willing to tell people that he believes deeply in his faith, that he is proud of his faith, etc. What he often gets are questions regarding specific doctrines. This is rediculous! Can you imagine a press conference wher JFK is aksed to explain the transubstantiation of the eucharist, or where George Bush is asked to explain the Nicene Creed as defined by the Third Ecumenical Council? First of all, unlike Romney, none of them could answer such questions. And second it would be beyond rediculous.

Mitt is attempting to keep the topic on things that Americans actually care about - immigration, Iraq, taxes, etc. Mitt has spent years teaching the LDS beliefs as a Stake President and Bishop. He is abundantly familiar with LDS teachings. He just assumed, since he is running for president, that the voting public cared more about his plans for our childrens education than where Mormons believe Christ will first re-appear (hint: Jerusalem).less

Lex - All I can say is, "are you kidding me?". You are worried that Romney had to be so advised? Why not worry baout those giving the advice. Politicians get advice from all-comers. That doesn't mean they take it. And (dannygirl) in the "biggest phony" contest, Mitt is hardly a contender. With people like Rudy "sorry I have to take a call from my wife" Guliani an...more

Lex - All I can say is, "are you kidding me?". You are worried that Romney had to be so advised? Why not worry baout those giving the advice. Politicians get advice from all-comers. That doesn't mean they take it. And (dannygirl) in the "biggest phony" contest, Mitt is hardly a contender. With people like Rudy "sorry I have to take a call from my wife" Guliani and John "let me milk my son's death a bit more" Edwards in the race, Mitt can't hold a candle to these two for phoniness. Politicians will be politicians, but what I know of Mitt (from experience) is that he is a man of integrity. Should he have told Rep. Bob Inglis to take a flying leap? Sure. But being able to always speak your mind is a luxury you lose when you run for President. Thems the facts.

Have you ever been in a job interview? When they asked what your faults were, did you tell them that you can't remember the quadratic equation or that you once peed your pants in a client meeting? Or did you say "sometimes I just work too darn hard". Is that two faced? Or is it the reality you face when you try to put your best foot forward?

All Mitt did (or at least the article implies this) is listen to what this Inglis had to say. It doesn't say he didn't tell him off. You assumed that. Mitt is his own man.

And your claim that Mitt doesn't understand his own faith is laughable. He understands the LDS faith perfectly well.less

FT - Sorry but I hardly disengaged because I refused to examine soemthing. Nice way to try and play to the crowd. I specifically remember conversations we had and I can go back to my email and forward you where we left off. Please feel free to email me at pregmanishere at yahoo dot com That ex-Mormons would claim to have finally seen the light is a silly bit of evidence to offer. An ex-evangeli...more

FT - Sorry but I hardly disengaged because I refused to examine soemthing. Nice way to try and play to the crowd. I specifically remember conversations we had and I can go back to my email and forward you where we left off. Please feel free to email me at pregmanishere at yahoo dot com

That ex-Mormons would claim to have finally seen the light is a silly bit of evidence to offer. An ex-evangelical could equally say the same and as a former Presbyterian I would probably describe my conversion that way. It proves only that when we change our beliefs, we would desrcibe it similarly.

That none of you are willing to respond to my claim (with proof) that a position against Romney due to his faith is bigoted and a marke of igorance is a telling point. Rather than defend this claim you merely attack my faith. Well done.

FT email me when ever you please.less

FT- regarding Mormons having anything to fear from the liberla press, I say "bring it on". And while none of us can claim to lack bias FT, if you recall we spoke via email previouosly and you never offered me anything to cause concern or reject any LDS belief. Your position is a matter of opinion not fact. In my 13 plus years as a Mormon, I have had multiple such conversations. You...more

FT- regarding Mormons having anything to fear from the liberla press, I say "bring it on".

And while none of us can claim to lack bias FT, if you recall we spoke via email previouosly and you never offered me anything to cause concern or reject any LDS belief. Your position is a matter of opinion not fact.

In my 13 plus years as a Mormon, I have had multiple such conversations. You claim it is EASY to prove my faith false. I have an above average IQ. Why has something so easy never been achieved with me? You yourself failed previoulsy.less

And I still say that any opinion that one's faith can disqualify them from the Presidency is indeed bigoted. That this belief seems to emenate specifically from the Evangelical faith might be telling. Surveys support my contention that it is a result not only of being an Evangelical but also a lack of education. Again, so sayeth a survey reported here on this website. I am doing my best to...more

And I still say that any opinion that one's faith can disqualify them from the Presidency is indeed bigoted. That this belief seems to emenate specifically from the Evangelical faith might be telling. Surveys support my contention that it is a result not only of being an Evangelical but also a lack of education. Again, so sayeth a survey reported here on this website.

I am doing my best to restrain my frustration (probably not doing very well). I can't promise this election hasn't begun to taint my view of Evangelicals. But when I say that some evangelicals are taking a bigoted position held primarily by uneducated members of their faith, it would seem that the facts are on my side.less