Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Mormons aren’t Christians. But I’ll vote for Mitt Romney.

Romney was not on my list of desirable Republican candidates, but I’ll still vote for him.  Why?  Because the lesser of two evils is less evil.  And the current President puts forth truly evil and destructive policies.

It is interesting to see how the media and the fake Christians were quick to defend attacks on Romney’s faith when they were trying to help him win the Republican nomination but are subtly and not-so-subtly attacking his faith now.  Hypocrites.

Mormons aren’t Christians, but I have a lot more in common with them politically than I do with Leftist (read: fake) denominations like Obama’s apostate UCC.  Mormons are pro-life and pro-family.  Romney will spend far less than Obama.

And remember, we haven’t seen the worst of Obama.  If he wins again he’ll be even more unrestrained than when he pushed through the un-Constitutional Obamacare, arbitrarily decided not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, took over General Motors to give $$ to the unions, and so much more.

Most importantly, the next President will get to appoint a couple of justices to the Supreme Court, which will swing the court to the good or the very bad for decades.

P.S. I’m so disappointed when people who should know better insist that Mormons are Christians.  See Mormonism isn’t Christianity, even if the president of Fuller Theological Seminary says otherwise for an example.

Also see Are Mormons really Christians? Are Christians really Christians?

33 thoughts on “Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Mormons aren’t Christians. But I’ll vote for Mitt Romney.

  1. I’m still not ready to go that way. Oh, it’s the pragmatic way. Vote out Obama even if you aren’t interested in voting in Romney. It’s the call of the pragmatist and the politician and even James Dobson. But I’m not at all clear what is more evil and destructive. Is it the devil you know or the devil you don’t? We know, as an example, the evils of “sex and drugs and rock and roll”, but somehow miss the destruction wrought by “easy listening” which assures us that sex between lovers is a good thing. We miss the hook because the bait is pleasant. What will Romney offer? Not Christianity. Fine. Got that. Wasn’t expecting it. But I’m pretty sure that what we’ll expect from Romney is whatever is expedient at the moment and sometimes that can be more destructive than the devil we know.

    • I think your fear is a bit overwrought, though to some degree I share it. His past does give one pause, but if we can turn the Senate and increase the majority if the House, I don’t know that he will be inclined to push or support anything we’d oppose. What’s more, I do not think there is any possible way he could be worse than Obama simply because he does
      have experience as a business man. His flop-flopping has
      been explained as Romney learning and adjusting to what he
      has learned. Because of the “devil we know”, I will cross my fingers that this is the case. Another four years of the “devil we know” may result in a greater inability to reverse the
      damage he will surely cause.

      • “I don’t know that he will be inclined to push or support anything we’d oppose.”

        On the issue of abortion, Romney is staunchly middle-ground. He wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned … so individual states can allow abortion if they wish. He vetoed a Contraception Bill because it didn’t require parental consent for the morning-after pill … not because it allowed the pill. Romney calls himself pro-life, but would not favor a federal ban on abortion. RomneyCare included funding for abortion. Romney is not “pro-life“. One issue of great concern to me. Romney fails.

        Not comparing Obama to Hitler, but … the purest evil that Germany has known took Germany down the most destructive path it has ever seen. The result of that evil was the restoration of Germany and the restoration of Israel. Having seen what evil can do, the nation never wanted to go back there again. Sometimes “the devil you know” isn’t as well known as you might think and people need to see it for what it really is. Romney is more “benign” and incrementalism is prevalent.

      • Romney’s opposition to Roe v Wade, as you stated it, is actually the proper position for a presidential candidate to take in the sense that it looks at the role of the federal gov’t in the proper manner. Among those who oppose Roe are those who do so simply because it removed the states’ sovereignty on the issue. That is, that the decision should be a state matter and not a federal one. I agree with this aside from my overall opposition to abortion. In other words, it is one of many reasons why I oppose Roe v
        Wade. I won’t say that I am completely informed of Romney’s opinion on the subject of abortion or what he
        would prefer. But this position of putting the “choice” back to the states, where it should have been in the first place, is a
        good move.

        Now, I do support a federal ban on abortion, at least on the reasons 99% of abortions are done, and would like to hear his reasons for not supporting it himself. But as so many
        people support the right to kill their own children, we may have to satisfy ourselves with incremental changes in the
        right direction as we oppose them in the wrong direction.

        To your last paragraph, I, for one, do not feel that we should allow ourselves to slide into a deeper hole before getting
        ourselves out. Don’t forget that Germany was beaten into
        understanding. Who will beat us until we understand?

  2. I’m kind of stuck on: Our nominee is a squishy moderate. Elect him because he’s better than the alternative. Hope for a relatively do-nothing administration and a quiet four years. Hope for a genuine conservative in 2016.

    Course that’s what we said about McCain in ’08, too…

  3. I still need to be convinced that Romney is not just an Obama in Republican clothing. If we re-elect Obama and the country survives, maybe Republican leadership could be persuaded to nominate a real conservative. Otherwise we just have stalemate until the next liberal comes along and pushes us farther down the slope.

    • Just wondering, what makes you see Romney as “just an Obama in Republican clothing”? Is it the Romneycare? His past support for things he claims he no longer supports? This is a sincere inquiry as the charge, that he is just like Obama, is a rather serious one considering the low esteem in which I hold Obama. I would think Romney’s business past alone, together with tax perspective such a businessman would likely have would distinguish him from Obama in a big way. To me, that makes him more a “better than Obama” choice than a “not Obama” choice.

      • OK, you are right. Still all that past support for things he claims he no longer supports makes me question his judgement or his sincerity. And I also have seen plenty of successful business men who would make horrbile president’s.

      • Indeed, he is known as a flip-flopper. One “pundit”, Sandy Rios, who was a radio talk show host in Chicago, spent some time as president of Concerned Women for America and is also a contributor for FoxNews and Townhall.com, was totally opposed to Romney due to his past positions on social issues, saying that he only says what he needs to say t get elected. Hugh Hewitt has always been a supporter
        of Romney and claims he’s seen the light.

        I would also agree that having business experience alone
        does not qualify anyone for the presidency, but only that it makes one MORE qualified than Obama was before he was
        elected.

        But it is getting to that point at which we must decide. It does seem as if the choice will be between Romney and
        Obama. I can’t see as how either not voting or voting for a
        third party candidate or doing anything that will result in four
        more years of Obama can ever be regarded as the proper thing to do.

  4. Thank you for your link to my recent post on those tirelessly working to “bridge” Christians with the cult of Mormonism.

    Regarding voting for a Mormon (or the lesser of two evils), may I offer the following few posts on the subject?

    Should a Christian vote for the lesser of two evils?
    http://defendingcontending.com/2011/06/09/should-christians-vote-for-the-lesser-of-two-evils/

    Should a Christian vote for Mitt Romney?
    http://defendingcontending.com/2011/06/06/should-a-christian-vote-for-mormon-mitt-romney/

    A shocking realization if a Mormon becomes president of the United States.
    http://defendingcontending.com/2011/08/06/a-shocking-realization-if-a-mormon-becomes-president-of-the-united-states/

    Independence Day and the state of the church.
    http://defendingcontending.com/2010/07/03/independence-day-and-the-state-of-the-church-2/

    Has the religious right lost its voice in American politics?
    http://defendingcontending.com/2008/10/14/has-the-religious-right-lost-its-voice-in-american-politics/

    Should Christians try to win morality through legislation?
    http://defendingcontending.com/2011/12/08/should-christians-try-to-win-morality-through-legislation/

    The fall of the United States of Rome.
    http://defendingcontending.com/2010/01/10/the-fall-of-the-united-states-of-rome/

    I don’t expect us all to agree on all of these matters, but I just wanted to offer some food for thought.

    - Pilgrim

  5. Before commenting, I thought it would be prudent to read the links provided. I clicked and read and they led to other essays that I read. They all suggest that the idea that Mormons aren’t Christians is such a slam dunk that anyone who disagrees with the premise is clearly an ignorant rube. As a Mormon, I find the arguments less than compelling. Many of them are circular or rely on false premises and unwarranted assumptions about what the Bible actually says.
    While I agree with your assessment that a competent (though possibly moderate Republican) Mormon would be better than an incompetent socialist, I also think it’s very dangerous to base one’s vote on a candidate’s theology. I did that back in the 70′s, concluding that Jimmy would be a good president because he was clearly a committed Christian. That didn’t turn out well at all.
    Some of Romney’s theology may garner support among people who fear Obama is slowly disassembling our constitution and the freedoms it guarantees: Romney’s belief that God led the founders to establish this nation and its constitution; and that we will remain free “if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ…” might resonate with enough Americans to make a difference. A man who believes that God inspired the Constitution would surely be less likely to try to dismantle it than one who thinks it stands in the way of of a welfare state where people can vote for whoever will give them the most free stuff. Who knows, maybe the election will boil down to a choice between a cultist and the anti-Christ?

    • Alma,
      I would be more than happy to educate you as to why the Mormons are NOT Christian – by the way of what the BIble really says about God, Christ, etc. But a very first thing is that the entire LDS faith is based on the word of Joseph Smith as a prophet. Since he had about 50 false prophecies that I am aware of, he cannot have been a prophet of God, and, therefore, the entire LDS is based on lies.

      As for voting for Romney, Obama’s plan has always been to destroy the nation’s economy (see the Cloward-Piven strategy, to which he subscribes) so as to lead us into deep socialism. He is an ardent marxist socialist, which is something that no matter how RINO Romney has been, he would be much better for this country than Obamanation.

      I am an ex-Mormon and have studied the LDS for almost 40 years. If anyone should know the danger of an LDS president it would be me. But I see more danger by keeping Obama in there, and in my opinion any Christian who won’t vote for Romney against Obama is just bigoted against Mormonism. (and in our political system, a vote for a 3rd party always ends up being wasted and helpful to the Democrats.)

      • Glenn:
        I’m familiar with the arguments that attempt to exclude Mormons from the rubric of Christianity; but they aren’t logically consistent. They rely on double standards, bogus premises, equivocation, and bad hermeneutics. (Only 50? I’ve seen lists with more and similar ones applied to the Bible.) Unfortunately, the population at large is easy prey for such sloppy thinking and that’s why we have Obama today. Lots of people voted for him to prove they weren’t racists. This November they need to vote against him to prove they’re not idiots–but the odds are against us.

      • Alma,
        I’ve never come across “logically inconsistent” arguments which PROVE the LDS is not Christian; perhaps you could give me an example? It is the LDS which has “bogus premises, equivocation, and bad hermeneutics.” It is the LDS which relies on new “revelation” which was unheard of even in the first century. It is the LDS which has to make over 4000 changes to the BOM to fix errors, made dozens of changes to the Book of Commandments to fix “revelations” for the D&C, lots of revisions to the JOD to “fix” problems, etc. It is the LDS which denies or just plain revises history and doctrine which is embarrassing, etc. The LDS faith was built on lies and is sustained by lies.

        I’m sure there were more than 50 false prophecies by Smith – I just said about 50 that I’m aware of and did an article on. The only “Sloppy thinking” is on the part of Mormons who refuse to look at the origins and history of their belief system.

        As I stated previously, I am an ex-Mormon an have studied church documents and doctrine for almost 40 years; you aren’t going to get me to fall for your claims of bad research on the part of non-LDS. Did you ever wonder how Joseph Smith was able to find a “prophecy” about himself in Genesis in the version he “translated”? Don’t you wonder why Joseph’s version of Genesis was never part of the O.T. in Hebrew and that he was the first to find it? And what about the Book of Abraham which was “translated” from a funeral document? These frauds don’t get you thinking that something is “rotten in Denmark”?

      • Glenn

        The amount of time you have spent studying Mormonism is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not your assumptions and conclusions are valid. Your comments above demonstrate that your assumptions are flawed. It is very difficult to arrive at a valid conclusion when you begin from a mistaken assumption—whether you study for 40 years or a 100.

        You brought up the fact that LDS scripture has been revised. If you really understood LDS theology you would already know that we don’t have a problem with that fact. We reject the Protestant paradigm of inerrant scripture; so, whether there have been 1 or 4,000 revisions to the text of our scripture is irrelevant. All you have noted is that we don’t believe in inerrant scripture. Well, we already knew that. You’d think that after 40 years of study you would have realized it too. (BTW, since the LDS Church never has published the JOD, it would be interesting to see how they have managed to make any revisions therein.)

        If you find the fact of revisions problematic, you need to show how holding that perspective is incompatible with being a Christian; and why the fact Christians have produced edited scriptures (with thousands and thousands more changes) doesn’t qualify for the same censure.

        You’ve sent two messages to me, both indicating that you’re an ex-Mormon. I honestly don’t see the point of bringing that up even once. It certainly doesn’t make me think you know any more about Mormonism than someone who never was LDS; rather it brings to mind the passage from 1 John 2:19: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” In fact, that explains to me why you still labor under the basic misunderstanding about the nature of scripture.

      • Alma,
        It is the amount of time I’ve spent, it is the thoroughness of the research. The fact that I was an ex-mormon is to demonstrate that through proper research of the history of Smith and the LDS faith one can readily learn the truth. I can say that it is YOUR assumptions which are flawed, the assumption that you can accept a false prophet’s word, the fact that you can assume what you have been taught is true without proper investigations.

        The problem with the BOM being revised is that it was supposed to have been translated by direct revelation, which means there should be no errors. Some of the changes are major. Same with the Book of Commandments to make the D&C – the revelations which were given to Smith were edited to completely change them; how can a revelation be changed without God changing it? Revising the JOD, etc to edit out false prophecies and troubling teachings is problematic because it is nothing but lying to cover tracks. Lying is incompatible with the Christian faith.

        Your canard about Christians “editing” Scriptures is a false comparison – we have manuscripts of both OT and NT from which we can compare and make corrections, while there is nothing to compare the BOM to and it was by direct revelation!

        I don’t labor under any misunderstanding of LDS Scripture – it is you who refuse to see the truth.

        The god of Mormonism is a man who worked his way to godhood while the God of the Bible has eternally been God and was never a man – he has always been Spirit. The differences between the LDS Christ and the Christ of the Bible make them two totally different entities. Just these two things alone prove the LDS is not Christian.

    • Glenn,

      You wrote, “It is the amount of time I’ve spent; it is the thoroughness of the research.” I wrote in my first comment that I find the arguments on the suggested links “less than compelling.” Our exchanges have only emphasized that your arguments are equally vacuous. Over the years, I’ve found that communication with some people is impossible. They seem to believe that asserting and re-asserting constitutes dialogue. I generally lose interest when it is apparent that they can only reassert something I have politely explained is false. For example:

      You claimed that the LDS made “lots of revisions to the JOD to “fix” problems, etc.” I pointed out that the LDS Church never has published the JOD and so it would be interesting to see how they might have managed to make any revisions. Perhaps, if I had said, “You don’t know what you’re talking about, ‘the LDS’ have never published the Journal of Discourses, and every single edition has been a photostatic reprint,” it would have been more apparent that I know you don’t know what you’re talking about. I know it’s a minor detail; but in discussions of this nature, those dishonest assertions have a tendency to pile up. However, the fact that you simply reiterated that false assertion in your reply tells me two things: 1) your pretended “thoroughness” is pretended, and, 2) when called out for a false claim, you merely reassert it. Just to be clear, the Journal of Discourses has never, ever been published by the LDS. They were initially privately published by stenographers as a subscription newspaper; and subsequently photocopied for republication by anti-Mormon fundamentalists in the 1960’s. Of course, you can prove me wrong by demonstrating that any of the photostatic copies of the JoD have been revised; and, that the revisions were done by “the LDS.” Do you have such evidence or are you just going to reiterate your assertion?

      While I see lots of problems with many of your other assertions one is repeatedly lifted out of anti-Mormonism 101, and merits a response. (My personal definition of “anti-Mormonism” is rather restrictive. I don’t believe that opposition to my faith automatically qualifies as “anti-Mormonism.” I think it has to rely on dishonest premises; or, to come from someone who makes their living opposing Mormonism.) You claimed, “The god of Mormonism is a man who worked his way to godhood while the God of the Bible has eternally been God and was never a man – he has always been Spirit.”

      The God of Mormonism is Jesus Christ (title page of the Book of Mormon.) He was God before He was a man and he lived and died in the first century of the Christian era. The God of the Bible is also Jesus Christ and He most definitely was a man. He lived, was crucified and rose the third day. Your assertions are not only false; they are easily demonstrated as such. Now, I know the response that follows, you come back and say, “Ah, but he isn’t THE God, just “a” god.” Don’t waste my time by telling me what I believe and then redefining it when you’re shown to be unaware of Mormon and biblical teachings..

      • Alma,

        I can tell that no matter what I was to say to you, no matter what proof of the many lies the LDS has spread by changing “revelations” and other historical documents to hide embarrassing truths, you will not accept it as anything other than “anti-Mormonism” (why is it we are called “anti-Mormons” but Mormons don’t want to be called “anti-Christian”?).

        My “thoroughness” is certainly not “pretended” and I do have a CD program from the Deseret Book Store with the full JOD on it. Perhaps I should clarify that things that were published in the JOD and cited in other LDS publications do not always read the same. But to continue this line would be pointless because it doesn’t get at the root – the false religious system which the LDS is.

        No, I did not lift anything out of “Mormonism 101” (which is an excellent book exposing LDS teachings, by the way). No, the God of Mormonism is NOT Jesus Christ, although he is ONE of the three gods of Mormonism. Mormonism’s God the Father is the context of the man who worked his way to Godhood, and Jesus was his first-born spirit child. Now let’s get back to “Heavenly Father,” since that was the context. Your disingenuous response is quite a common dodge.

        By the way, I never said anything about what you personally believe; I was discussing the LDS doctrine.

  6. I too learned my lesson about voting based on religion with Jimmy Carter. We aren’t trying to create a Theocracy here. We are trying to sustain a Constitutional Republic, and that aint gonna happen with 4 more years of Obama. Don’t forget the open mic gaffe with the Russian President. Obama is hoping he gets 4 more years so he can really put it to the people.We can’t let this happen.

    In 2012, I’m voting for ABO. (anybody but Obama)

  7. The next president will likely be selecting two Supreme Court justices. That is perhaps the most important consideration.

    • This is a major consideration for me as well. I don’t know the quality of justice that Romney would nominate. We’ve already seen what Obama would do. How could we want more of THAT?

  8. To the multiple commenters who aren’t sure Romney would be any better than Obama, I understand where you’re coming from. I was definitely for Santorum, and also against Romney. I share your concern about incrementalism and the very real fear that government in our age can only grow larger, that we may have passed a point of no return for liberty and limited government.

    But let me offer you one reason to hope that Romney would be vastly better than Obama, perhaps not only containing the growth of the federal government but even pushing it back down some: He has publicly talked about cutting whole government agencies.

    From a conservative source:

    Mitt Romney wants to eliminate government programs and shutter cabinet agencies. Doing so, he says, is “the critical thing” that needs to be done in order to bring government books back into balance and to begin restoring the promise of America. “Actually eliminating programs is the most important way to keep Congress from stuffing the money back into them,” . . . .

    . . . His inveterate risk-aversion often comes off as a lack of commitment to conservative policies and goals, a perception that confounds his advisers, who say that Romney, in the spirit of the turnaround campaigns that marked his career in the private sector, is dedicated to profound, even radical, changes in what the federal government does and how it operates.

    From a liberal source.

    It’s funny, both sources (liberal and conservative) make it sound as if Romney were being a very cautious politician by not giving a fully detailed list of what he would want to cut. But it seems like just a few months ago that Rick Perry was supposedly politically insane for doing just that, naming particular agencies he would eliminate. I think it’s probably politically dangerous for Romney to say he would eliminate anything at all—it’s so easy for the other side to demagogue things like that—and I appreciate the fact that he has said it anyway. I’m not surprised he hasn’t been more specific, and under current political constraints, I’m not sure we should expect him to.

    I hope I don’t sound naive; I’m not saying I have a lot of hope that Romney will cut and reorganize our government as ruthlessly and effectively as he did to save failing companies in the private sector. But I think it’s possible that he’ll do something in that direction, and that would be great. There is roughly zero chance that the alternative, President Obama, will make government do anything other than grow enormously. Therefore we should all vote for Romney.

    I also agree that the president’s power to appoint Supreme Court justices is very important, and another great reason to support Romney.

    Finally, to weigh in briefly (if I can get away with that) on other debates going on in the comments here:

    — A federal ban on abortion would be unconstitutional. We wouldn’t preempt the states with a federal ban on murder more generally, would we? A lot of the stuff the federal government does these days is unconstitutional, but it’s still an important point.

    — Mormonism isn’t Christian because Mormonism does not believe in the Trinity. The end.

  9. Here’s what I’ve never understood about Mormonism. Several things, actually:

    1) Mormons will tell you that when Jesus spoke of having “other sheep, not of this sheep pen” that He was speaking of His upcoming mission to the peoples of the as-yet undiscovered New World. By any yardstick, then, one must conclude that this New World mission (being carried about by God Himself, no less…) was a colossal failure. Why do I say that? Because there were no Christians here to greet the Spanish when they arrived in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries! When the conquistadors and the Catholic missionaries who followed started building missions in Florida and California and elsewhere, wouldn’t one presume that the natives would have heard some of this before? After all, the Word would have had 1,500 years to spread throughout the Americas…

    2) The LDS church doesn’t seem to be aware of Paul’s writing, where he specifically says that anyone preaching a gospel other than his, shall be eternally condemned, even if said alternate gospel was delivered by “an angel from Heaven,” as Joseph Smith is alleged to have seen. (I’ll gloss over the fact that angels don’t give their names, while demons do…and this one supposedly gave his to Smith)

    3) The complete and total lack of archaelogical evidence suggesting a pre-Columbian Christianity, or for that matter, any evidence of the ancient civilizations that Smith alleges lived in the Americas in the 400s….contrasted with reams upon reams of evidence for the true Bible and the events in Mesopotamia and Israel that it describes.

    4) About fourteen other whackadoodle things Mormons believe that don’t jibe with Scripture.

    • That said, I have no problem with a Mormon president. I’m electing a civic leader, not a religious one. Neil pointed out that while there are deep chasms between the LDS and Christianity, they’re on the same page as other social conservatives (like us) when it comes to the issues of the day.

      I don’t have a lot of faith in Romney’s fiscal conservatism (also important), but I do like that he at least has business experience, something glaringly absent from the incumbent. I also happen to think that while he isn’t Palin, he’ll at least slow the growth of government, or (hopefully) at least avoid launching any major new domestic initiatives during his first term. I see Romney as lukewarm at best on many issues that matter to me, such as gun rights, and what kind of jurists he’ll put on the SCOTUS and other federal courts.

      At this point, after four years of social engineering and unchecked government growth, I’d be satisfied with a do-little, say-nothing little. Repeal Obamacare, freeze federal spending, make the tax cuts permanent, roll back Obama’s bans on oil drilling. All I really want from a president right now is for him to freaking STOP meddling with the economy and START vetoing more of the nonsense that Congress sends to his desk. If we can’t get the country moving in the right direction, can we at least stop going in the wrong one?

      That’s all I ask. Is it really so much?

    • 1) Mormons will tell you that when Jesus spoke of having “other sheep, not of this sheep pen” that He was speaking of His upcoming mission to the peoples of the as-yet undiscovered New World. By any yardstick, then, one must conclude that this New World mission (being carried about by God Himself, no less…) was a colossal failure. Why do I say that? Because there were no Christians here to greet the Spanish when they arrived in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries! When the conquistadors and the Catholic missionaries who followed started building missions in Florida and California and elsewhere, wouldn’t one presume that the natives would have heard some of this before? After all, the Word would have had 1,500 years to spread throughout the Americas…

      2) The LDS church doesn’t seem to be aware of Paul’s writing, where he specifically says that anyone preaching a gospel other than his, shall be eternally condemned, even if said alternate gospel was delivered by “an angel from Heaven,” as Joseph Smith is alleged to have seen. (I’ll gloss over the fact that angels don’t give their names, while demons do…and this one supposedly gave his to Smith)

      3) The complete and total lack of archaelogical evidence suggesting a pre-Columbian Christianity, or for that matter, any evidence of the ancient civilizations that Smith alleges lived in the Americas in the 400s….contrasted with reams upon reams of evidence for the true Bible and the events in Mesopotamia and Israel that it describes.

      4) About fourteen other whackadoodle things Mormons believe that don’t jibe with Scripture.

      Matt:

      1) Consider this yardstick from the Book of Mormon: After Jesus appeared to the people in the New World everyone in the land became converted to the Lord and there followed a period of 200 years of peace where every single person in the land was saved. However, men being carnal, sensual and devilish, they rejected the gospel message so that 400 years after Christ all had apostatized.

      2) The LDS Church is very aware of Paul’s writings and agrees with him that those teaching another gospel than the one received by the Galatians should be accursed. Mormons just believe that that “other gospel” is what was taught at Nicaea and subsequent councils after the deaths of the apostles; and that the gospel taught by Moroni is the same as that taught by Jesus and His Apostles. You might want to take a look at Luke 1:20, where Gabriel announces his name to Zacharias.

      3) Are you aware of any archaeological evidence for the fact that the Israelites wandered for 40 years in Sinai? How about for the Garden of Eden, or for any miracles? The fact that you can find evidence of civilizations in the Holy land isn’t evidence that the miracles actually occurred any more than the existence of Salt Lake City demonstrates that Mormonism is valid.

      4) Can you name one? Give it your shot and come up with the wackiest thing Mormons believe and we can see if it jibes with Scripture.

      • 1) Really? All of them? To a man? You mean exactly like happened to the early Christian church in the Roman world?

        Er, wait…except that didn’t happen in the Roman world, did it? Despite persecution, the Church grew and thrived, even to the point where it eventually became the state religion of the very empire who persecuted it! Remember, you’re talking about the HOLY SPIRIT of God here. He doesn’t plant churches that wither up and die. Shouldn’t the natives have been so full of God’s love that THEY built ships, crossed the Atlantic, and started planting churches in Europe and Asia long before Christians from the Middle East had had a chance to spread the Word of God to the pagan peoples of medieval Europe?

        Even if you were right, there should have been SOME vestiges of this pre-Columbian Christianity for the Spanish to find in the Americas – written records, ruins of old churches, something. There weren’t. In Europe we have Roman ruins and Stonehenge and the Parthenon…something should have survived from that period.

        My point stands.

        2) The LDS Church is very aware of Paul’s writings and agrees with him that those teaching another gospel than the one received by the Galatians should be accursed.

        Well, that’s interesting, because my Bible doesn’t mention any of this New World stuff.

        Mormons just believe that that “other gospel” is what was taught at Nicaea and subsequent councils after the deaths of the apostles; and that the gospel taught by Moroni is the same as that taught by Jesus and His Apostles.

        …except that the Bible was already completely written by then. There would have been nothing to add by Nicea. It was written by Apostles or men who knew the Apostles. You’re veering into the territory of the false “gospels” that were added later…some of which Martin Luther threw out. Neil’s been over this many times in this space.

        3) Are you aware of any archaeological evidence for the fact that the Israelites wandered for 40 years in Sinai? How about for the Garden of Eden, or for any miracles?

        I’m aware of plenty:

        http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/maps/archaeological-and-external-evidence


        The fact that you can find evidence of civilizations in the Holy land isn’t evidence that the miracles actually occurred any more than the existence of Salt Lake City demonstrates that Mormonism is valid.

        At least I have some I can point to. You don’t.

        Can you name one? Give it your shot and come up with the wackiest thing Mormons believe and we can see if it jibes with Scripture.

        Wow, where to start?

        Polygamy. You guys believed that all the way to 1890, when the LDS finally renounced it only after being forced to by the State of Utah, who in turn had been denied admission to the Union over it….not because the LDS had had a change of heart.

        And I believe there are some vestiges of the practice among the LDS today. Enough, in fact, that HBO actually has a series about it (“Big Love”). The rest of us gave up on it thousands of years ago after God changed the rules.

        That stuff about Jesus and Satan supposedly being brothers. Really? The Bible says quite clearly that Jesus is God’s “only begotten Son.” That means God DOESN’T HAVE ANY OTHER BEGOTTEN SONS. Satan is a created being, nothing more.

        Something about Mormon men getting a planet full of wives in the next life, or something like that.

        Oh, and the missionary techniques that the LDS use. You guys think it’s appropriate to go onto private property and bother people in their homes, trying to recruit members for your church. The rest of us just witness whenever we can, to people we already know….and we serve the community. Remember, faith without works is DEAD – yet another Bible verse that the LDS seem to be unfamiliar with.

        Truthfully “Alma,” I don’t know why you’re here. Have any of us shown the slightest bit of curiosity about the LDS church or beliefs? Do you think you’re going to come onto a Christian blog and convert one of us?

        Sorry for the tone…nothing personal. But one of my frustrations (and this applies to the Catholics and Jehovah’s Witnesses to) is trying to witness to someone, and first having to correct all the lies and misinformation fed to them by LDS missionaries and other false religious messengers.

So, what do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s