Scathing website about Mitt Romney and Mormonism

[Soverign Grace]

We can only do what we can do. Our foremost evangelism is perhaps the way we live... that is, how we appear to everyone we meet whether we open our mouth or not. How much like Jesus are we?

That's an important point - perhaps everything. I think there should still be a word of warning however. I've been reading 'War on the Saints' and she said that a "beautiful life is no indication of godliness." That may be the evil one's biggest scam. He uses a person who looks, talks, and acts like a Christian. I've seen both. A youth pastor from a church we attended led many astray with his outward ungodliness. Yet I've dealt with someone who kissed everyone's rear in an attempt to get them on her side and only then she began her secret program to deceive and use them for her own gain.

 

[Soverign Grace]

You won't 'silence me' except in this thread. Reading depressing stuff like this thread does not move the Body of Christ forward , uplift us, or glorify God.

So yep..I am stepping back from it. There are lots of other threads on the Site.

Each believer has discernment and must be led from within as honestly before God as they can, as to the work that they think that God is leading them to do. They shouldn't be dissuaded by others, their naysaying, or by their belief systems. Imagine if the apostles did that. Christ's Words and christianity would never have spread. Even Peter denied Christ 3 times due to peer pressure. Paul had to flee for his life shortly after he was converted. On his first missionary journey he was set upon and stoned at Lystra. What if he had others tell him to focus only on the positive, uplifting things at the time, and Paul didn't have the fortitude to continue on, although the road was hard and he had to face unpleasantness because of the Word? In every age Christians have faced persecution because of the word of God. But Jesus said ‘in the world you will have tribulation.’ (John 16:33) I tried the way of the health and wealth preachers and I learned it's a false way.

I saw other believers attempt to impose their personal views on a person and it failed miserably. A woman at a church near us attempted suicide - I don't know her story and why. I was told that a raucous man grabbed her and boisterously declared that what she needed was Christian singing. He grabbed other believers and they circled the woman singing joyously. Only the woman wasn't singing. I think that man did more damage if anything. We have to be careful stepping into a situation we know nothing about. There is a lot of misapplication in christianity I've seen. There have been times I've misapplied.

Other believers may not have the eyes to see yet, the work that God may be doing. There are many motivations in a man's heart. Sometimes other believers can see these as different discussions expose what's in the heart.

It's understandable if you're upset by a topic - another topic is only a click away.

I can only handle so much of it. After I share the things I feel God may want me share, I move onto other things so I understand your feelings.

 

[Soverign Grace]

But the temple Mormon can practice polygamy in celestial marriages.

So it needs needs to be made clear exactly what kind of marriage you talking about.

Joseph Smith founded the Mormon faith and he allegedly took plural wives, took other mens wives, and married teens. This is from the Salt Lake Tribune:

New Mormon essay: Joseph Smith married teens, other men's wives

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Joseph Smith founded the Mormon faith and he allegedly took plural wives, took other mens wives, and married teens. This is from the Salt Lake Tribune:

New Mormon essay: Joseph Smith married teens, other men's wives

And....?

 

[Soverign Grace]

And....?

I think you're better off debating someone else about Mormonism because I don't know enough about it.

I know plural wives was practiced in the Old Testament but I don't know how that relates to the New Testament. On face value it would seem unbiblical to take another man's wife. That seems it would be coveting.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I think you're better off debating someone else about Mormonism because I don't know enough about it.

I know plural wives was practiced in the Old Testament but I don't know how that relates to the New Testament. On face value it would seem unbiblical to take another man's wife. That seems it would be coveting.

I was just wondering why you posted it.
And no, I not interested in "debating" anything. I find "debating" to be almost always very un-Christ-like behavior.

 

[CoreIssue]

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were the powerhouses of the early Mormon church.

Each with the practicing polygamist

List of Joseph Smith's wives - Wikipedia

List of Brigham Young's wives - Wikipedia

Wife of Joseph Smith – Fanny Alger – LostMormonism.com

Polygamy, Brigham Young and His 55 Wives | HuffPost

 

[amadeus]

That's an important point - perhaps everything. I think there should still be a word of warning however. I've been reading 'War on the Saints' and she said that a "beautiful life is no indication of godliness." That may be the evil one's biggest scam. He uses a person who looks, talks, and acts like a Christian. I've seen both. A youth pastor from a church we attended led many astray with his outward ungodliness. Yet I've dealt with someone who kissed everyone's rear in an attempt to get them on her side and only then she began her secret program to deceive and use them for her own gain.

Consider Jesus' words here:

"And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Matt 19:17

Only one Good! That is, God! The word "good" gets used by many people in many circumstances, but where is the good in them?
The "good" is them, if there is good, should be the God in them. Consider what Apostle Paul wrote here:

"To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:" Col 1:27

The beauty in a person, the real beauty, is the God in them. Do people who don't really know God have anything beautiful of good in them? When each of us is born to woman, I believe that we have a glimmer of Light or of Good, but that is not enough to please God in the final end of the matter. See our natural birth here:

"That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." John 1:9
That is NOT the rebirth of John 3:3. Rather, it is the hope that God left in each person even though they, that is we, were all effectively dead to God.

Dead people can manifest that glimmer of good but it really needs to grow and God knowing that and including that in His overall plan sent His Son.

Adam and Eve were born with Life until they disobeyed and lost for themselves and their offspring that Life and thereafter dead reigned among men... until Jesus brought Life. But even before meeting Jesus each person had that glimmer of Light/Life/Good which gave them hope of obtaining more and really being Alive before God and men.

Those good ones we see at times perhaps polish up their glimmer but for their own purposes rather than God's or they have lost the love of truth and in their delusion [ II Thess 2:10-11] put on a show to impress those around them.

We must grow toward God or lose even that little bit of good with which we start. Jesus came to make this a possibility...

 

[Soverign Grace]

I was just wondering why you posted it.
And no, I not interested in "debating" anything. I find "debating" to be almost always very un-Christ-like behavior.

I posted it in response to CI's post.

I had thought that you were upset so I unsuccessfully attempted to change the direction of the topic away from Mormonism. You continued to discuss it with CI so I saw that you must be okay with discussing it. If it bothers you I personally won't post about the topic anymore.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I had posted it in response to CI's post.

Oh ok, I didn't connect those dots because CI's extremely misinformed post doesn't directly connect with what you posted.
Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Soverign Grace]

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were the powerhouses of the early Mormon church.

Each with the practicing polygamist

List of Joseph Smith's wives - Wikipedia

List of Brigham Young's wives - Wikipedia

Wife of Joseph Smith – Fanny Alger – LostMormonism.com

Polygamy, Brigham Young and His 55 Wives | HuffPost

It's hard to believe that one man could have 55 wives. I couldn't imagine all the problems between all those wives and then all those kids. How could they possibly all get along? How would they deal with jealousy? Look at the problems between Leah and Rachel. It was good for the man maybe but not for the women. But women seemed to be rated lower in OT times. It's still that way in some other countries.

I don't recall anywhere in the NT where this issue is even addressed - does anyone else know? I've never read any teaching on why that was allowed to be practiced in the OT times by God. To me it's like a put-down to women. It would be like giving men the legal right to commit adultery.

 

[CoreIssue]

It's hard to believe that one man could have 55 wives. I couldn't imagine all the problems between all those wives and then all those kids. How could they possibly all get along? How would they deal with jealousy? Look at the problems between Leah and Rachel. It was good for the man maybe but not for the women. But women seemed to be rated lower in OT times. It's still that way in some other countries.

I don't recall anywhere in the NT where this issue is even addressed - does anyone else know? I've never read any teaching on why that was allowed to be practiced in the OT times by God. To me it's like a put-down to women. It would be like giving men the legal right to commit adultery.

It was illegal in the new testament. They stoned Jews for IT.

 

[brakelite]

When this was written up Islamist subversion of America was not in view. Since the Koran clearly promotes Jihad and Muslim domination against all infidels, there must then be a further amendment to clarify that Islam does NOT qualify as a religion but an ideology to wage war against America and the West. The Islamists fully understand that they can subvert the Constitution while quoting the Constitution.

But here is what is written in the Koran, and Muslims claim that the West has been committing aggression again them, and all Westerners must be driven out of Muslim lands:

Sura 2:193. And fight them until there is no oppression, and worship becomes devoted to Allah alone. But if they cease, then let there be no hostility except against the oppressors.
Sura 2: 194. The sacred month for the sacred month; and sacrilege calls for retaliation. Whoever commits aggression against you, retaliate against him in the same measure as he has committed against you. And be conscious of Allah, and know that Allah is with the righteous.
Sura 2: 216. Fighting is ordained for you, even though you dislike it. But it may be that you dislike something while it is good for you, and it may be that you like something while it is bad for you. Allah knows, and you do not know.
Sura 2:244. Fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah is Hearing and Knowing.
Sura 3:19. Religion with Allah is Islam. Those to whom the Scripture was given differed only after knowledge came to them, out of envy among themselves. Whoever rejects the signs of Allah—Allah is quick to take account.
Sura 3:28. Believers are not to take disbelievers for friends instead of believers. Whoever does that has nothing to do with Allah, unless it is to protect your own selves against them. Allah warns you to beware of Him. To Allah is the destiny.
Sura 4:84. So fight in the cause of Allah; you are responsible only for yourself. And rouse the believers. Perhaps Allah will restrain the might of those who disbelieve. Allah is Stronger in Might, and More Punishing.

The Constitution was written by a generation of people with the recent papal domination of Europe in mind. They were well aware of the centuries of persecutions that had tormented their forbears. Yet what they did in drafting the Bill of rights and the Constitution was to give the government just one responsibility when it came to religion. Protect freedom of conscience. The founding fathers did this with the full knowledge that Catholicism would eventually arise in the US through immigration, and it indeed did particularly from Ireland. But protecting freedom of conscience was something that had to be protected for everyone. Even the ones we don't agree with. If we protect others rights, our own are protected. The moment we claim the right to only tolerate others, we give the precedent to others to only tolerate us... Until they change their mind. Protecting other people's freedoms is the only guarantee of our own safety.
The danger comes when the majority removes that freedom of conscience.

 

[CoreIssue]

The Constitution was written by a generation of people with the recent papal domination of Europe in mind. They were well aware of the centuries of persecutions that had tormented their forbears. Yet what they did in drafting the Bill of rights and the Constitution was to give the government must one responsibility when it came to religion. Protect freedom of conscience. The founding fathers did this with the full knowledge that Catholicism would eventually arise in the US through immigration, and it indeed did particularly from Ireland. But protecting freedom of conscience was something that had to be protected for everyone. Even the ones we don't agree with. If we protect others rights, our own are protected. The moment we claim the right to only tolerate others, we give the prevent to others to only tolerate us... Until they change their mind. Protecting other people's freedoms is the only guarantee of our own safety.

That English did not flee from the catholic church. They fled from the monarchy and the church of England.

 

[brakelite]

That English did not flee from the catholic church. They fled from the monarchy and the church of England.

True... But before the church of England Catholicism ruled ... Both churches were state churches and it was that state of affairs that your founding fathers were trying to avoid repeating. Separation of church and state is a true Protestant ethic . Roger Williams was the first true visionary of this truth.

 

[Enoch111]

Yet what they did in drafting the Bill of rights and the Constitution was to give the government just one responsibility when it came to religion. Protect freedom of conscience.

And that is all well and good when we are talking about genuine religious convictions. But Islam is a completely different kettle of fish. Those who are committed Muslims will never swear to abide by any Constitution, since Sharia Law is their Constitution. Why then should they be allowed to take public office? Their ultimate objective is to establish a Caliphate and Sharia worldwide.

If Islam would take control of any Western country, that would be the end of freedom of religion. There are Muslim countries (as we speak) which ban Christian churches and persecute Christians. And the Muslims have declared for ages that they want to exterminate all the Jews. Therefore on the basis of the Koran and their own declarations, it would be prudent to ban Islam and its mosques from the West, and Muslims from taking public office. But that takes guts, and they know that the West has no guts. Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and parts of America have capitulated.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

It's hard to believe that one man could have 55 wives. I couldn't imagine all the problems between all those wives and then all those kids. How could they possibly all get along? How would they deal with jealousy? Look at the problems between Leah and Rachel. It was good for the man maybe but not for the women. But women seemed to be rated lower in OT times. It's still that way in some other countries.

I don't recall anywhere in the NT where this issue is even addressed - does anyone else know? I've never read any teaching on why that was allowed to be practiced in the OT times by God. To me it's like a put-down to women. It would be like giving men the legal right to commit adultery.

How polygamy was/is practiced has varied dramatically across different cultures. But in every one it was/is VERY different than having the legal right to commit adultery.

Anyway, speaking from the LDS perspective: God's default for marriage is one man and one woman. There have been times/places when there have differences from that default, such as the OT patriarchs. For LDS, polygamy has been specifically forbidden for well over a century. If someone marries a second living spouse, then that's grounds for instant excommunication. Additionally, anyone raised in a polygamist household must specifically forsake that lifestyle before being baptized.

 

[CoreIssue]

How polygamy was/is practiced has varied dramatically across different cultures. But in every one it was/is VERY different than having the legal right to commit adultery.

Anyway, speaking from the LDS perspective: God's default for marriage is one man and one woman. There have been times/places when there have differences from that default, such as the OT patriarchs. For LDS, polygamy has been specifically forbidden for well over a century. If someone marries a second living spouse, then that's grounds for instant excommunication. Additionally, anyone raised in a polygamist household must specifically forsake that lifestyle before being baptized.

It was never part of the American culture and never legal.

We're talking about Joseph Smith, the guy that founded your religion through supposed divine revelation from the nonexistent angel Moroni. A religion that still practices celestial polygamy populate new worlds when a man successfully becomes a god.

Try to paint his Christian all you want but it was not Christian.

 

[brakelite]

And that is all well and good when we are talking about genuine religious convictions. But Islam is a completely different kettle of fish. Those who are committed Muslims will never swear to abide by any Constitution, since Sharia Law is their Constitution. Why then should they be allowed to take public office? Their ultimate objective is to establish a Caliphate and Sharia worldwide.

If Islam would take control of any Western country, that would be the end of freedom of religion. There are Muslim countries (as we speak) which ban Christian churches and persecute Christians. And the Muslims have declared for ages that they want to exterminate all the Jews. Therefore on the basis of the Koran and their own declarations, it would be prudent to ban Islam and its mosques from the West, and Muslims from taking public office. But that takes guts, and they know that the West has no guts. Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and parts of America have capitulated.

You may not realise it, but your founding fathers knew all of that was true for Catholicism as well. Rome hates the Constitution. Their infallible syllabus of errors denounces freedom of religion with as much fervour as does the Koran. What do you think will happen to Protestantism of a Catholic majority takes control of the ballot box, seeing they already have control of the supreme Court? What do you think is Romes ambitions for America when the Pope comes and speaks in the house of representatives?

 

[brakelite]

America has far more to fear from Rome than Riyadh or Mecca.