A diamond/PBS invitation, for the curious, openminded, and intellectuals

[coemgen]

diamond -- let me first say that I respect that you're passionate about your faith. That's great. I am about mine, too, obviously. We both have that right and that's a good thing. However, because Mormonism says it's Christianity and there's overwhelming evidence that it's not, from my perspective, I can't stay quiet about it. If I did, then my faith must not matter to me if I felt there was a counterfeit posing as the real thing. In any case where there's a counterfeit, it's never as valuable as the real thing. And if we're talking about eternity as the end result, well, it's worth discussing. I'm sure you feel the same way. I'm willing to continue discussing this and I'll do so until the thread's locked or until the discussion dies down. I find this enjoyable and important.

That said, here's a quick response to some stuff you said:

Your claim of archaeological support: I see what you're saying, but you only bring up more questions than you answer. I don't see any archaeological support here still. All you have given me is a legend, which you explained is questionable, too.
If one of Quetzalcoatl's "Christ-like" attributes was that he was a white man, then this is just further evidence of the Book of Mormon having an American view of the Bible, which isn't accurate. Christ likely wasn't a “white” guy.
Also, both the Smithsonian Institution and the National Geographic Society have denied claims that there’s archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon, and they don’t recognize it as a historical document of record.
“No Book of Mormon cities have ever been located, no Book of Mormon person, place, nation, or name has been found, no Book of Mormon artifacts, no Book of Mormon scriptures, no Book of Mormon inscriptions, no Book of Mormon gold plates – nothing which demonstrates the Book of Mormon is anything other than myth or invention has ever been found.” (Ankerberg and Weldon, Cult Watch, p. 38)

Your claim of no contradictions with Mormon scriptures: What about the various copies of the Book of Mormon.
For instance, in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, Mosiah 21:28 said “king Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings; . . .” In the 1981 edition, it reads “king Mosiah had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings;…”
Which is it? Benjamin or Mosiah? What will it say 100 years from now?
What about the Book of Mormon contradicting the Bible? Alma 7:10 says “And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel …”
Matthew 2:1 says “Now after Jesus wsa born in Bethlehem of Judea . . .”
Which is it?
And among other Mormon scriptures, you have problems like God’s indwelling of the righteous. Alma 34:36 says “And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell;” Doctrine and Covenants 130:3 says “The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false.”
So you have one Mormon publication calling the Book of Mormon false?
But Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was the most accurate book of all time – more accurate than the Bible. How can this be? I’ve got many more examples of this, too.

Your claims of the Bible plagiarizing itself: Isaiah and Micah have many similarities and are close in language, so I can see how you’d make this assumption, however, the two were contemporaries. The same goes for Obadiah and Jeremiah. Plus, as each was a prophet – God revealed to them the same vision. They drew from the same source.
The Book of Mormon has too many similarities to King James version of the Bible, and also has many phrasings common during the 19th century in which Smith lived. There’s also many instances where names in the Book of Mormon have the same letters of names from the Old Testament, but they’re switched around a bit.
This site even offers a compelling argument that Smith plagiarized Walt Whitman’s “Leaves of Grass.” http://www.jefflindsay.com/bomsource.shtml

That’s part of my response to your statements. I’ll try to get to the other stuff this weekend.
Have a great weekend.

coemgen

 

[diamond]

This is an interesting debate, though. I thoroughly expected to come in here and think "man these posts supporting Mormons are crazy", but you do a good job explaining your faith in the face of some (admittedly legitimate) challenges, diamond.

.

Mind you, I come at this having never read any Mormon literature. This is merely a historical viewpoint.

Dave C,

That you came in this discussion with a friendly tone I will gladly address a few of your issues, and it may help you see these historical issues from a slightly different perspective.

Re, the Civil War, this is a pretty in depth piece, you have to remember setting, the time and the place that it originally occured:

On Dec. 25, 1832, Joseph received the following revelation about the American Civil War, now printed as Section 87 of the Doctrine and Covenants:
1 Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;
2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.
3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.
4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.
5 And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.
6 And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations;
7 That the cry of the Saints, and of the blood of the Saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Saboath, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies.
8 Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold it cometh quickly, saith the Lord. Amen.

break out between north and south, if not right away then eventually.



"We have in our possession a pamphlet, published at Liverpool, in 1851.... In view of our present troubles, this prediction seems to be in progress of fulfillment, whether Joe Smith was a humbug or not.... Have we not had a prophet among us?"
-----
(Philadelphia Sunday Mercury after the outbreak of the Civil War. Clipping in Journal History, 5 May 1861.)


Beginning in the 1830s, LDS missionaries carried manuscript copies of the above revelation with in their missionary journeys, and "frequently read it to their congregations in various parts of the United States" (Roberts, p. 315). The entire revelation was printed in 1851 in Liverpool, England, in a pamphlet entitled, "The Pearl of Great Price." This was a decade before the first shot of the Civil War on April 12, 1861. Thus, the prediction was made 28 years before its fulfillment, and was printed and circulated in England and in the United States at least ten years before.
Further, while speaking in Ramus, Illinois, on April 2, 1843, Joseph said: "I prophesy, in the name of the Lord God, that the commencement of the difficulties which will cause much bloodshed previous to the coming of the Son of Man will be in South Carolina. It may probably arise through the slave question. This a voice declared to me, while I was praying earnestly on the subject, December 25th, 1832."
Was Joseph's prophecy just a case of noting existing tensions and making obvious extrapolations? Hardly! While there had been tensions between the South and the North, including talk of secession, hardly anyone seriously thought that civil war would erupt. Americans had great faith in their nation and in democracy. In fact, there were members of the Church who were so shaken by the "ridiculous" nature of Joseph's civil war prophecy that they left the Church, rejecting him as a false prophet. Even if Joseph were trying to make something out of trends and currents he saw in society, the many specific details of his prophecy suggest that more than reason and guesswork were needed to be so accurate. Let's consider the details that he accurately predicted:
1. The war would begin with the rebellion of South Carolina.
2. It would cause the death and misery of many souls.
3. The Southern States would be divided against the Northern States.
4. The Southern States would call upon other nations for assistance, even upon the nation of Great Britain.
5. Great Britain would call upon other nations for assistance
6. War would eventually be poured out upon all nations.
Now in December of 1832 there was controversy involving South Carolina and the issue of states' rights. South Carolina had advocated the doctrine of "nullification," arguing that a state could nullify federal laws or taxes that they ruled to be unconstitutional. If there was federal resistance, then South Carolina said they could leave the Union. President Andrew Jackson argued against their position. With much controversy in the air, it would seem logical that Joseph be stirred to ponder the events of the day and inquire of the Lord, resulting in the revelation of Dec. 1832. But there was no reasonable expectation of war at that time, or even in 1851 when the prophecy was more widely publicized. Can anyone offer evidence from writings of American statesmen or scholars in 1832, 1843, or 1851 that make such predictions? Did other wise minds of the day foresee what Joseph saw? Neither a scholar or statesmen, the uneducated 27-year old man, Joseph Smith, saw what would happen by the spirit of revelation.
Civil War Foretold BEFORE Dec. 1832?
While details of the Civil Ware were foretold on Dec. 25, 1832 in Section 87 of the Doctrine and Covenants, earlier prophecies hint at the upcoming war. Section 38, verse 29, given nearly two years earlier on Jan. 2, 1831, implies that war was coming upon the United States, and that the Lord was leading his people west (first to Ohio) to prepare them for and deliver them from the trouble ahead:

29 Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land.
30 I tell you these things because of your prayers; wherefore, treasure up wisdom in your bosoms, lest the wickedness of men reveal these things unto you by their wickedness, in a manner which shall speak in your ears with a voice louder than that which shall shake the earth; but if ye are prepared ye shall not fear.
31 And that ye might escape the power of the enemy, and be gathered unto me a righteous people, without spot and blameless -
32 Wherefore, for this cause I gave unto you the commandment that ye should go to the Ohio; and there I will give unto you my law; and there you shall be endowed with power from on high; . . .
The implied war was not to be caused by foreign invasion, but was due to wicked men in Joseph's own land, suggestive of civil war. A related warning is in Section 42, verse 64, given Feb. 9, 1831:

64 And even now, let him that goeth to the east teach them that shall be converted to flee to the west, and this in consequence of that which is coming on the earth, and of secret combinations.
A month later, on March 8, 1831, still nearly two years before the Dec. 1832 problem with South Carolina, the Lord again warned the Saints of the need to move west to escape war in this country. In Doctrine and Covenants 45:63-64, we read:

Ye hear of wars in foreign lands; but, behold, I say unto you, they are nigh, even at your doors, and not many years hence ye shall hear of wars in your own lands.
64 Wherefore I, the Lord, have said, gather ye out from the eastern lands, assemble ye yourselves together ye elders of my church; go ye forth into the western countries, call upon the inhabitants to repent, and inasmuch as they do repent, build up churches unto me.
Of course, these were mere hints compared to the explicit detail given in Section 87 in 1832, but it should be clear that Joseph Smith the Prophet had received warnings about pending war in this country well before Dec. 1832. And the call to move west to escape the war was truly prophetic, for the Saints, continuing their westward trek to Utah in the late 1840s, were outside the scope of the Civil War when it did sweep across the United States, in fulfillment of detailed prophecy.

It is a fact of history that South Carolina took the initiative that led to the rebellion of the Southern States and that the war began in South Carolina. Reacting negatively to the election of Abraham Lincoln, South Carolina's leaders convened on Dec. 20, 1860 and passed an ordinance of secession. Newly elected Governor Pickins then declared "the dissolution of the union between the state of South Carolina and the other states under the name of the United States." Ten other states later joined South Carolina, but she was the first to rebel. The Civil War was the bloodiest this country has ever seen, causing about 400,000 deaths. The South did enlist the aid of Great Britain and also sought help from France (Great Britain, as I recall, also encouraged France to assist the South). Later, after war had been poured out on the nations of the earth, Great Britain found herself threatened by Nazi Germany and called upon other nations of the earth for her defense. After the Civil War, international intrigues and wars grew to increasing severity, with ghastly international scenes of horror during World War I and World War II, with dozens of other wars having been fought and going on at the moment. War has always been on the earth, but the scale of destruction since the Civil War has grown sharply, and war in the past century has become increasingly multinational rather than bilateral. Truly, war has been poured out on all nations.
Joseph said that "after many days" slaves would rise up against their masters. I don't think that referred to the Civil War, but to later events, perhaps events that I have seen in my lifetime. Uprisings of repressed peoples in many Communist nations and other authoritarian states may have been meant in the prophecy. Past and future uprisings of some groups in the United States may also be meant. During the Civil War itself, however, there were relatively few instances of slaves rising up against their masters. The prophecy, however, says "after many days" (meaning, I think, many days after the prophesied war had begun), not "during the Civil War."
Orson Pratt was a young missionary who told others of Joseph's civil war prophecy long before it occurred. He was mocked for it, as were many others. Here are his words (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 135. as cited by Otten & Caldwell in Sacred Truths of the Doctrine & Covenants, Vol.2, pp.93-94):
This prophecy has been printed and circulated extensively in this and other nations and languages. It pointed out the place where it should commence in South Carolina. That which I declared over the New England States, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and many other parts in the East, when but a boy, came to pass twenty-eight years after the revelation was given.
When they were talking about a war commencing down here in Kansas, I told them that was not the place; I also told them that the revelation had designated South Carolina, "and," said I, "you have no need to think that the Kansas war is going to be the war that is to be so terribly destructive in its character and nature. No, it must commence at the place the Lord has designated by revelation."
What did they have to say to me? They thought it was a Mormon humbug, and laughed me to scorn, and they looked upon that revelation as they do upon all others that God has given in these latter days -- as without divine authority. But behold and lo! in process of time it came to pass, again establishing the divinity of this work, and giving another proof that God is in this work, and is performing that which He spoke by the mouths of the ancient prophets, as recorded in the Book of Mormon before any Church of Latter-day Saints was in existence.
In an article about Orson Pratt's use of the Civil War Prophecy, William G. Hartley discusses Orson's experiences to show how non-Mormons viewed the prophecy before its fulfillment, and how the non-Mormon editors of one newspaper reacted to Joseph's prophecy once the Civil War broke out ("Prophecy in His Pocket," New Era, Jan. 1989, pp. 44-45):
"When I [Orson Pratt] was a boy, I traveled extensively in the United States and the Canadas, preaching this restored Gospel. I had a manuscript copy of this revelation (on civil war), which I carried in my pocket, and I was in the habit of reading it to the people among whom I traveled and preached."
How did his listeners respond? Did they say, "Well, it takes no prophet to see war will start in South Carolina"? No. Said Orson: "As a general thing the people regarded it

Re: "medical" training...this was the 1800s, people knew that excessive meat-eating wasn't good for you and that vegetables were healthy.

You have to remember that Joseph Smith had a 3rd grade education. First consider the revelation, the time it was given, and by whom and his medical qualifications.

Section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants contains a revelation given to Joseph Smith in 1833 known as the Word of Wisdom. It outlines principles of healthy living that go far beyond the scientific knowledge of the 1800s and much of this century. For example, it prohibits tobacco as being harmful to man - something which was not proven by science until this century. Alcoholic beverages are also prohibited, as is black tea and coffee (the "hot drinks" of his day). Positive statements are made about the importance of wheat and other grains, along with other produce. Meat is not prohibited, but should be used "sparingly" and primarily in times of winter or need. The 1833 dietary guidelines sound much like the recommended "food pyramid" produced by federally-funded research. The revelation also says that the health principles in it were given to warn us and protect us from the "evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days." I see that as a prophetic statement of the terribly evil role that the U.S. tobacco industry continues to play. Through its use of clout and money, they continue to receive federal support for tobacco farmers and continue to legally market a product that brings death to over 400,000 Americans each year - at a time when we ban or regulate numerous other products if injury to only a few people is threatened.

And of course as the founder of a new religion/denomination of a religion (whichever you prefer to all it), he would prophecy the vast expansion of his church. Jesus did the same, Moses did it, nearly every religion believes that they will eventually come to be the global faith.

Dave C context, setting and timing are important here. Bear in mind in the early 1800s as the frontier was expanding there were new denominations springing up almost weekly. Those denominations didn’t receive the firestorm of persecution like the LDS Church did, they weren’t being driven from town to town and state to state. I'm sure many of these new churches predicted they would fill the globe, but where are they now? That said, that Joseph is in company with Jesus and Moses in regards to this fulfilled prophecy bodes well, wouldn't you say?

Here’s what actually happened:

The setting is in a room full of men about 6 -7, members of the new church that were getting, whipped, beaten and persecuted on a daily basis. These men were very discouraged at the time and through prophetic inspiration this is what Joseph told them at the time:

the Prophet arose and said, "Brethren, I've appreciated what you've said, but you no more comprehend the destinies of this Church than a little child on its mother's lap." And then he said, "Brethren, this Church will fill North and South America. Brethren, this Church will fill the earth."

Predicting a 2-person presidential election is not exactly what I would call "prophecy" .

The prediction/prophecy was made more than 15 years before the election and Stephen Douglas hadn’t even considered running for the presidency. Joseph requested Judge Stephen Douglas’ help in persecution against the Saints, and Stephen Douglas (being a judge at the time) after expressing initial interest, declined to get involved and at that moment Joseph uttered these prophetic words:

Judge, you will aspire to the presidency of the United States; and if ever you turn your hand against me or the Latter-day Saints, you will feel the weight of the hand of Almighty upon you; and you will live to see and know that I have testified the truth to you; for the conversation of this day will stick to you through life (HC 5:394).

In his election campaign Douglas did speak against the Church. It is interesting to note that Abraham Lincoln received 180 electoral votes and Douglas only twelve in the election of 1860. It was considered one of the biggest political upsets in United States history. The two states that supported Douglas were New Jersey and Missouri. Less than one year after that political contest, Stephen A. Douglas, yet in the prime of manhood, died a broken-hearted man at home at age forty-eight.




And as an aside here is how a non LDS contemporary describe Joseph in a letter to his wife after meeting the Prophet in Washington DC:
Description of Joseph Smith

"Washington 6th February 1840 My Dear Mary- I went last evening to hear Joe Smith, the celebrated Mormon, expound his doctrine. I with several others, had a desire to understand his tenets as explained by himself. He is not an educated man: but he is a plain, sensible strong minded man. Everything he says, is said in a manner to leave an impression that he is sincere. There is no levity, no fanaticism, no want of dignity in his deportment. He is apparently from forty to forty five years of age, rather above the middle stature, and what you ladies would call a very good looking man. ln his garb there are no peculiarities, his dress being that of a plain unpretending citizen. He is by profession a Farmer; but is evidently well read.

I have changed my opinion of the Mormons. They are an injured and much-abused people. Of matters of Faith, you know I express no opinion. In describing the sufferings of his followers in Missouri he was somewhat eloquent, as he has a good voice for the pathetic.
..... Remember me to Sarah and the Boys - Kiss the dear Baby for me - Affectionately your Husband. M. L. Davis - I omitted to say, he does not believe in Infant Baptism, Sprinkling, but in immersion, after eight years of age" To Mrs Matthew L. Davis, 107 Henrystreet New York."

 

[maycocksean]

Interesting thread. . .a couple of random thoughts.

I read "Under the Banner of Heaven" and it probably shook my faith more than anything I've ever read. That people would do such horrific things because they believed God told them to. . .well, I knew then and I still feel that I'll never be the kind of Christian that would do "anything" for God.

And the thing is, I'm not a Mormon.

I tend to agree with both Ormus and Coemgen on the topic of the veracity of the Bible--if that's possible.

The picture Ormus paints of the Bible "evolving" over time, I don't have any problem with. In fact, I think there's plenty of evidence even within the scriptures of a changing understanding of the nature of God. I don't find the fact that there are similar "storylines" in other faiths problematic. If anything, it strengthens my faith, in the sense that many people from various faiths had a sense of these things. I don't have an issue with the church fathers deciding what would be in the Biblical canon and what wouldn't nor do I have an issue with what their motives may have been.

The reason I don't have issues with any of the above is because I believe (the "leap of faith" that Ormus talked about it) that the Holy Spirit was guiding the whole process. So those who don't believe might look and just see a random process of some people putting together a holy book, but I believe that this was a process directed by God. Obviously I can't prove such a thing, and I wouldn't be foolish enough to try. But the bottom line is Christianity has "worked" for me. It rings true to me, just as it has for millions, even billions of other people all over the world. For me the Bible is more than just a dusty old book written by old guys a long time ago, it is "living and active."

For those who don't believe who want to actually understand where a believer is coming from you have to give credence to the power of that personal living experience we have with God and what we believe to be His Word.

As to the Mormons. I don't feel any need to try to discredit them. . .or anyone for that matter. My feeling is that if what I believe is "Truth", there is no need to attack others with it. It can speak for itself. And if some other idea is untrue, it will collapse on it's own without me having to go after it.

It does seem that Mormons have "clean living" down and I do admire that. I studied with a couple of Mormon missionaries here in Saipan a few years back--they were really excited because my church claims to have a prophet also and they saw that as a real point of common ground. I would guess that the prophet business is a real stumbling point with most other Christians. But we hit an impasse over the authority of the Book of Mormon. They insisted that the Book of Mormon was on par with the Bible and I couldn't agree with that (We don't even make that claim about the writings of the prophet in our own church). I was also a bit bothered by what I felt was the extremely authoritarian nature of the LDS church (the same reservation I have about Catholicism). The leader of the LDS church (as far as I understand it) has a tremendous amount of spiritual authority and I'm just not too excited about any human being having that kind of spiritual clout. Course the downside of not having a central authoritarian figure is the five million different denominations because no one amongst the "Sola Scriptura" crowd can agree on what the Bible teaches. But I rather live in that noisy, contentious world of wrangling with the nature of the Christian truth, then quietly taking what is handed down by another human being clothed in Final Authority.

So those are my thoughts on that. . .

 

[LyricalDrug]

My Mormon-related activities are presently restricted to rooting for the Golden State Warriors to crush the Utah Jazz in the second round of the NBA playoffs.

Goooooo WAARRRRIORSSSSS!!!!!

 

[diamond]

won't happen.

 

[Smallville]

Some interesting Mormon related press coming soon:

http://www.septemberdawn.net/

This should be interesting. Has quite a few Mormons up in arms, so to speak.

 

[maude]

The leader of the LDS church (as far as I understand it) has a tremendous amount of spiritual authority and I'm just not too excited about any human being having that kind of spiritual clout.

As you have pointed out, members of the LDS church believe the leader of the church is a prophet of God and has the same amount of spiritual authority as the prophets of the Bible did. I realize that many Christians have different interpretations and ideas about the Bible but I had thought that all Christians believed that prophets such as Moses and Abraham, etc. had a special authority from God to receive spiritual revelation and guidance for the people of the world. So I suppose I am wondering what you're views are of the prophets of the Bible.

 

[maycocksean]

As you have pointed out, members of the LDS church believe the leader of the church is a prophet of God and has the same amount of spiritual authority as the prophets of the Bible did. I realize that many Christians have different interpretations and ideas about the Bible but I had thought that all Christians believed that prophets such as Moses and Abraham, etc. had a special authority from God to receive spiritual revelation and guidance for the people of the world. So I suppose I am wondering what you're views are of the prophets of the Bible.

Well, I can't speak for all Christians, but I suppose I can speak for my particular faith tradition. . .I believe that the prophets such as Moses and Abraham were human beings; they in and of themselves carried no special authority--in fact in some cases they weren't even particularly good people (take Balaam and the prophet with the concubine in Judges for example). There were many legitimate prophets of God such as Abraham, Nathan, Elijah, and Elisha who either did not write anything or what they did write was not deemed fit for the canon. Prophets that are not in the canon must be judged by the canon and remain subordinate to the canon.

Obviously, the accepting authority of canonical Scripture is a leap of faith, as Melon pointed out. It's a leap I'm comfortable making A) because of the personal impact it has had on my life and B) for precisely the reasons that a lot of people might find cause to doubt the Bible--that a lot of hands of been on this material over a long period of time. Think of it as a kind of "wikipedia faith." "

So the writers--no the WRITINGS (the writers were only human)-- included in canonical scripture get a "pass" if you will. . everyone else has to be in harmony with that. That's the same standard the prophet in my own church is (or WAS, rather, she's been dead almost a hundred years now) held to and you won't find anyone in my faith tradition that will declare her writings equal to the Bible (though granted some people act as if she is). In actuality, belief in our prophet is NOT a test of membership in our church (though again some people act as if it is) and there are members of our church who don't accept her as a prophet.

So to answer your question--even if a person IS considered a prophet, that does NOT give them spiritual authority equal to or above the Bible.

 

[diamond]

Maycocksean,

It seems that you're referring to Ellen White who was a very interesting woman.
I've always heard good things about 7th Day Adventists and especially appreciate their health code that is similar to the LDS' Word of Wisdom.

I think there is room for all religions in our country especiallly ones whose teachings better mankind.

dbs

 

[verte76]

being Mormon doesn't protect you from gayness.

No it doesn't. You have the effects of it nonetheless. With a Mormon presidential candidate, this may be the year to watch this.

 

[verte76]

You're right, maycocksean, I have Seventh-Day Adventist cousins. They have a prophet, she was a very interesting woman. I'm a Christian and a Catholic by conversion as you probably are aware. The authoritarian nature of the Church is something that concerns me too. The Pope is a very interesting man. I saw him give a talk at Padua.

 

[diamond]

The Pope is a good man, not quiteJohn Paul but a good man nonetheless.

 

[maycocksean]

Maycocksean,

It seems that you're referring to Ellen White who was a very interesting woman.
I've always heard good things about 7th Day Adventists and especially appreciate their health code that is similar to the LDS' Word of Wisdom.

I think there is room for all religions in our country especiallly ones whose teachings better mankind.

dbs

Indeed I am referring to Ellen White.

LDS have always seemed to have warm feelings towards SDAs. After all we're another American-born faith often misunderstood by others with a prophet and health message. . .or maybe it's just that we both refer to our churches by their initials!

And I agree there should always be room for all religions. . .

 

[Irvine511]

The Pope is a good man, not quiteJohn Paul but a good man nonetheless.

and he's got a fabulous sense of style.

just look how he rocks the Prada:

 

[diamond]

hubba
hubba.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/09/sharpton.romney/index.html

 

[yolland]

^ I read about that debate in the NYT's 'Empire Zone' blog a few days back, and thought it sounded like just about the most surreally unlikely debate ever--Hitchens vs. Sharpton on religion! From what I've read though, it is quite probable that Sharpton's comments were taken at least somewhat out of context there, as Hitchens himself had indeed just slammed Mormonism as a historically segregationist religion, likely knowing full well that that would be a tough one for Sharpton to ignore. Wouldn't shock me either way really, but it does provide for some media cannon fodder.

 

[diamond]

Hitchens slams all religions because he is an Atheist.
Al Sharpton slams Mormonism because Al Sharpton is Al Sharpton.

dbs

 

[Irvine511]

lest we forget, Romney thinks that a "person of faith" should run the country.

atheists get out!

who's the bigot?

 

[diamond]

Irvine-

Most if not all Presidents have been people of Faith, that goes without saying.

Do you think Mitt lays awake at night dreaming up ideas of how to rid certain people out of our country ?

If you do, you're not as sharp as I'd hoped you were.

dbs

 

[Irvine511]

Irvine-

Most if not all Presidents have been people of Faith, that goes without saying.

Do you think Mitt lays awake at night dreaming up ideas of how to rid certain people out of our country ?

If you do, you're not as sharp as I'd hoped you were.

dbs

i think Mitt thinks we should tolerate atheists.

they're just unfit to lead the country.

he's made his faith a central reason why he should be elected, as did GWB.

those that live by the sword ...

 

[diamond]

oh
pooh
pooh.

 

[Irvine511]

oh
pooh
pooh.

would you vote for an atheist?

 

[diamond]

probably not on the other hand I wouldn't vote for a Hilter type nor a Stalin type.

dbs

 

[Irvine511]

probably not on the other hand I wouldn't vote for a Hilter type nor a Stalin type.

dbs

so atheists are Hitler and Stalin?

 

[Vincent Vega]

I'm Hitler or Stalin?

 

[diamond]

Stalin was a Marxist (Communist) and I don't know too many Communists/Marxist leaders that profess a divine belief or faith in Christ.

Hitler was elected in a democracy and allegedly believed in Christ, and just because a person believes in Christ doesn't necessarily make him a suitable leader, using Hitler as an example.

dbs

 

[Vincent Vega]

Nope, Hitler was not a Christ.
He was baptized a Catholic, but at a very young age. Back then, it was normal to get baptized, mostly at around three years. That didn't mean the people later actually believed.

He didn't believe in Christianity, and it's still in question to what extent he himself believed in Occultism, Spiritualitism or Esoterism
Anyways, an atheist isn't defined by people like Stalin/any other Communist leader, or Hitler.

Stalinism and Marxism is not the same.
Marx never promoted cruelty, gulags and mass killings.
There are many differences in how Marx viewed communism, and how Stalin viewed it.

 

[diamond]

thx for the info v vega.

i still wouldn't vote for either of them.

dbs

 

[deep]

Hitchens slams all religions because he is an Atheist.
Al Sharpton slams Mormonism because Al Sharpton is Al Sharpton.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rev. Al Sharpton called on former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to "engage in a dialogue of reconciliation" Thursday, a day after the two exchanged a war of words over Sharpton's comments about the Mormon faith.

"I have a profound respect for all believers of God, regardless of whether they are theologically in step with my beliefs or not, and I unequivocally say to the Mormons or anyone else that I in no way want to directly or indirectly be a part of any intolerance between any religions or races and regret my words being used or misused in any fashion that would add to that," Sharpton said in a statement.

Sharpton told his radio-show audience Thursday he personally called Romney, but Rachel Noerdlinger, a spokeswoman for Sharpton, told CNN the two did not speak.