I don’t care much about the title and conclusion of this article. News outlets are bursting with articles about some variation of, “Is America Ready for a Mormon President?” I’m sure the theme will be beat to death until the election is over. I read these stories to keep a pulse on general sentiment toward the church. The post below was written by Archbishop Cranmer.
I must conclude from the article below that the Archbishop is either lazy or unscrupulous to promulgate the blatant anti-mormon propoganda in the article. But that is what we have come to expect from many. Truth and accuracy are not considerations. Given his elevated eclesiastical position, the Archbishop should have been more careful or at least more conciliatory.
This post is not about the Archbishop who, to his credit, conceded a few points in the end. It is about DaveR, one of the commentors to the post. You can read the article then please follow the comments below. DaveR, whoever he is, handled the falsehoods from the Archbishop and from several commentors respectfully, accurately and will passion. Please read each of his responses.
Kudos to DaveR whom I would like to meet one day.
Mitt Romney: can a Mormon take the White House?
Mitt Romney has confirmed that he is to make another bid for the White House in November 2012. He will base his campaign on the assertion that ‘Barack Obama has failed America’. His focus will be the economy, hammering home the message that ‘the Government under President Obama has grown to consume almost 40 per cent of our economy’ which apparently means that the US is ‘only inches away from ceasing to be a free-market economy’.
The problem for Mr Romney is that whatever he attempts to make the political focus or the central message of his campaign, he will be confronted at every turn with an almost innate American suspicion of his Mormon faith. For most Trinitarian Christians (by no means just the Evangelical ‘Christian Right’), the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a cult whose theology is heretical and whose customs are anachronistic (to say the least). The Southern Baptist Convention firmly categorises Mormons with Scientologists; among those sects who have blasphemously added to Scripture and are under the control of false prophets. This is not insignificant for the Republican Party, whose evangelical base constitutes almost a third of the party’s electorate and can wield considerable power in primary states, most notably South Carolina.
In an attempt to neutralise this, Mitt Romney has said that America is choosing a commander-in-chief not a pastor-in-chief. He is attempting to echo the reasoning of John F Kennedy, the first Roman Catholic to take the White House, who placated Protestant church leaders with the declaration that he was ‘not the Catholic candidate for President’ but instead was ‘the Democratic Party’s candidate for President, who happens also to be Catholic’. He went on to allege (as Mitt Romney is doing) that those who play the religion card have something to hide. He said:
But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured – perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again – not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me – but what kind of America I believe in.
Well, it worked for him, even if it didn’t end well.
But Roman Catholics are Trinitarian and share many of the social concerns of America’s Evangelicals, particularly on the family, abortion, civil rights and poverty alleviation. And while the US Constitution affirms that ‘no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust’ (Article VI), it must be observed that Republican candidates are invariably asked at some point if they believe the Bible to be the inviolable Word of God, and none has ever quoted Article VI in response. It appears that one only becomes President of the United States by the adoption of the American Creed and with the majority assent of the American Church.
Certainly, Mitt Romney can (and probably will) say that he believes that ‘Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the savior of mankind’. But the theological ambiguities will not be expounded (and ‘ambiguities’ is putting it politely). The Mormon god is not spirit, but a mortal, material being of flesh and blood who progressed to deity, as all men may. If believers are good and faithful, each will be given a planet of their own to rule. The Mormon god lives in heaven in a polygamous relationship with multiple wives, and sexually reproduces. In common with Eastern religions, there is a variation on reincarnation as Mormons believe in the pre-existence of all people in heaven before they were born on earth.
While Mitt Romney worships Jesus Christ, this is not the Jesus revealed in Scripture. The biblical Jesus was with God in the beginning and was God: the Mormon Jesus was conceived and born in heaven first as a ‘spirit child’ by God the Father in union with one of his wives. Jesus was the first-born spirit child, and Lucifer was his second. Thus Jesus and Lucifer are brothers. The orthodox Christian teaching is that God became man and was born of a virgin. For Mormons, the heavenly man-god came to earth and had sexual relations with Mary, and Jesus was the result. Mormons do not believe in the eternal deity of Jesus: he became a god only after living a virtuous life on earth. He then appeared before the council of gods that meet near a star called Kolob, who declared him to be a god in the pantheon of gods. It is a religion of salvation by works, which even the Son of God has to earn.
What would Christopher Hitchens or doctors Richard Dawkins and Evan Harris make of this? It’s bad enough for them when politicians believe in virgin births, the resurrection of Nazarene carpenters, papal infallibility or the verbatim dictation by the Archangel Gabriel of a book in perfect Arabic. Not that Evan Harris is in the same league as the other two, you understand. But he tends to pop up with tedious regularity whenever religion dares to encroach into the public sphere, spluttering his hard-line secularism.
John F Kennedy had to persuade the sceptical American people that the White House would not become an embassy of the Vatican, and neither would the US President do the Pope’s bidding. But, for a nation born out of the struggle for liberation from religious tyranny, his words frequently rang hollow: the prejudices were only overcome by oratorical skill. At times, the communication of his dreams and visions were redolent of Martin Luther King Jnr:
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute – where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote – where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference – and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
That speech was made in 1960, yet 50 years later the land of the free still does not permit all men to be equal. The inequalities may no longer be based upon race or gender, but they are manifest and legion when it comes to religion. Barack Obama knows only too well how damaging even a whiff of Islam can be.
To win the White House, Mitt Romney has to become mainstream; he has to overcome the widespread perception that in office he will be the mouthpiece of a cult that wants the White House in order to realise a particular celestial heaven. To achieve this, he will need to detoxify the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, and persuade America that it is not a cult that seeks to do harm, but a bona fide religion; a positive, respectable and beneficial spiritual force. And yet the moment he attempts to do that, he will be accused of being a proselytising apologist for his theological cause.
There are, of course, too many relativist considerations in the present age for terms like ‘harm’ and ‘beneficial’ to be expounded. Even the democratic primacy of ‘mainstream’ is undermined by the deference displayed to every fragmented religious minority interest, for fear of causing offence. In the final analysis, every cult is now a religion because no-one is perceived to have the political right or the spiritual authority to tell anyone else what they should or should not believe, or what they may and may not do. Liberty has become a deity.
Since we are now obliged to respect all religious beliefs and revere every spirituality, perhaps Mitt Romney would make the perfect postmodern presidential candidate. All men may not be equal, but all religions certainly are. Islam is as great as Judaism and as noble as Christianity, which are just as worthy of respect as Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, and any and every other spiritual ‘-ism’ which emanates from the mind of man. Mormonism? Well, why not?
posted by Archbishop Cranmer at 9:25 AM Permalink
June 2011 12:48 DaveRsaid…
As a regular reader f this blog, I’m rather disappointed that Cranmer has chosen to reproduce such misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the Church of which I am a part. I can only assume, like many others, that he has merely obtained without checking from other sources.
To cover just a few:
1) “among those sects who have blasphemously added to Scripture and are under the control of false prophets” – Surely the crux of the issue, for we affirm these are true prophets, and thus true scripture. The concept that the canon is closed, like the concept canon itself, postdates the writing of the biblical text.
2)”But Roman Catholics are Trinitarian and share many of the social concerns of America’s Evangelicals, particularly on the family, abortion, civil rights and poverty alleviation.” – Does one have to point out that Latter day Saints, while certainly not trinitarian, *also* share many of the social concerns of Catholics & Evangelicals? Why does Cranmer imply otherwise?
3) “The Mormon god is not spirit, but a mortal, material being of flesh and blood who progressed to deity, as all men may. If believers are good and faithful, each will be given a planet of their own to rule. The Mormon god lives in heaven in a polygamous relationship with multiple wives, and sexually reproduces.” Mormons hold that God has ‘a body of flesh and bone as tangible as man’s’ (D&C 130:22), as indeed does Jesus (so clearly corporeality is not incompatible with deity, unless you make a mockery of the resurrection), but this is not a mortal body. We affirm that through the Gospel of Christ, all may be ‘heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ’ (Romans 8:17) and so receive ‘all that my Father hath’ (D&C 84:38). Much of the rest is misrepresentation – I defy anyone to find a reference to members receiving ‘a planet of their own to rule’ – an attempt merely to make our theology sound like sci-fi to dismiss it by means of association.
3) On Jesus, we find our beliefs in the Bible just as much as creedal Christians do, in that he was ‘the firstborn of every creature’ (Colossians 1:15). However, unlike the other spirit children of our Father in Heaven (namely us), he was already deity before the creation of this earth, being the ‘God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth’ (3 Nephi 11:14) and being the one who ‘gave the law’ of Moses (3 Nephi 15:5). The Adversary was, as are we, likewise a spirit child of our Father in Heaven (not sure where you’re dragging ‘second born’ from…), but *fell* and became the devil. As for Jesus’s birth, we affirm he was the only-begotten son of the Father in the flesh, but clearly state he was born of a *virgin* (1 Nephi 11:18, Alma 7:10)
4) On salvation, ‘we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.’ (2 Nephi 25:23). The Atonement of Christ is essential, but we must receive this gift, by our faith, repentance and obedience (Articles of Faith 3 & 4). Is Cranmer asserting that repentance & such is unneccessary when Christ clearly taught this?
5) Variety of other things could be looked at or examined in closer detail. Just to pick a few things out, the one chapter which refers to ‘Kolob’ (not a major feature of LDS theology) states ‘which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God’ (Abraham 3:9). References to time and so forth must be coupled with Alma 40:8 ‘all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto man’. Is this really so different to 2 Peter 3:8? And lest one forget, the Urim and Thummim happen to be *biblical*, although details there are lacking.
If one is in need of primary sources as to what Mormons believe, the ‘Standard Works’ (namely the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price), which are accepted as scripture, are available here: http://lds.org/scriptures?lang=eng
3 June 2011 12:49 I am Stansaid…
@ Dr What…no not Stargate SG1, Ancient Aliens on Sky Discovery Channel
3 June 2011 13:02 Tim Duck said…
DavidR, I always thought that Mormons thought that Americans were the lost tribe of Israel or something and that somehow Jesus Christ was an American?
3 June 2011 13:04 Malcolm Hulke said…
Is it only me or does Mitt Romney rhymn with Van Rompouy? I sense a conspiracy theory coming on…
3 June 2011 13:07 DaveRsaid…
Present day Americans are present day Americans.
The Book of Mormon tells of several families leaving Jerusalem shortly before the Babylonian captivity, making it to the New World, and forming several civilisations there before collapsing. These are not the lost tribes (who are elsewhere). 3 Nephi (a book in the Book of Mormon) has Christ visit these people following his resurrection, seen as a fulfillment of John 10:16. Christ is not held to be American.
3 June 2011 13:12 Curate’s Egg said…
David R is quite right when he says “Christ is not held to be an American” and that is because God’s an Englishman! (and if he’s not he is still a good egg).
3 June 2011 13:19 DaveRsaid…
I dont know about that – my understanding is that the sun never set on the British empire because God didn’t trust us in the dark.
3 June 2011 13:20 English Vikingsaid…
May the force be with you!
You do think that Jesus is Satan’s brother though, don’t you?
PS Joseph Smith? Not the very same Joseph Smith, the Freemason and serial liar and adulterer, that died in a wild-west prison shoot-out after being arrested for leading an armed militia in insurrection?
Shurley there must be shum mistake?
3 June 2011 13:29 DaveRsaid…
1) Yes, in a very modified sense.
2) So between a mob of 100-200 men against four men in a jail with several sticks and one small pepper-box pistol between them, you take issue with the four men defending themselves. I guess Joseph should have refused to use that pistol, even after his brother got shot in the face.
And there was no insurrection. What you did have were local papers threatening extermination. Again.
3 June 2011 13:39 Dreadnaught said…
“All men may not be equal, but all religions certainly are. Islam is as great as Judaism and as noble as Christianity”
I accept the sarcasm intended Cranny, but I afraid I totally have to agree with you – when superstition prevails, reason fails.
Beam me up Mr.Scott.
3 June 2011 13:47 Commander Snotty said…
Capt’n Dreadnought I canny get it to work!
3 June 2011 13:49 Zog, King of Kolob said…
You may well *sigh*, Mr Cranny. You started it, matey.
3 June 2011 13:53 Zog, King of Kolob said…
That’s right, Qog, my son. Not like that pasty-faced wastrel, your unworthy brother, Bog.
3 June 2011 13:57 Qog, song of Zog, brother of Bog said…
His Imperial Majesty, Mater of the 7 Legions of Snark, Admiral of the 9th Fleet (the dog’s kolobs) insults the high honour of Kolobs! A gunboat shall be dispatched to your homeland and it shall be smited!
3 June 2011 14:00 DaveRsaid…
I’m also thinking I should mention that it is Article VI, not Article IV, of the US constitution that forbids a religious test for office. I’d think it a typo, but it is repeated.
3 June 2011 14:00 Colonel JackO’ Neill said…
@ I am Stan, well Stargate SG1 is more plausible than the book of mormon. Give me a Gaoul’d to fight any day…
3 June 2011 14:02 Judy K. Warner said…
I don’t think Mitt Romney’s Mormonism will be his worst problem. Mormons are very good on the issues that concern Evangelicals. They led the way in putting Proposition 8 on the ballot in California, which outlawed same-sex marriage, and they have been vilified for it very publicly. They lead exemplary family lives, with lower divorce and illegitimacy rates than possibly any other group.
No, Mitt’s problems are two: (1) his inconsistency on the issues over time, for one thing becoming pro-life when it was politically opportune. And (2) his health care plan in Massachusetts is a big-government, expensive failure, too close to ObamaCare in some of its elements not to be a huge drag on his candidacy.
I may be wrong, and his Mormonism may be his downfall, but I doubt it.
3 June 2011 14:04 Jean-Luc Picard said…
Phasers on stun Mr Riker; there is a lot of nutters on this side today (English Viking, Graham Davies, then the Last Dodo will turn up).
3 June 2011 14:05 carl jacobs said…
If one is in need of primary sources as to what Mormons believe, the ‘Standard Works’ (namely the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price.
The Pearl of Great Price is more traditionally known as the “Book of the Dead.” The manuscript from which Joseph Smith derived the PGP was discovered in in the 1960’s complete with Smith’s notations in Smith’s own handwriting. It was presented for translation with great fanfare … here would be the great vindication of Joseph Smith as a prophet … but alas the translators discovered only the magical rituals of the cult of Osiris. The PGP remains the definitive and irrefutable proof that Smith was a false prophet, for he failed (miserably) the test of a prophet established in Scripture. And let us not make any claims about ‘spiritual translations,’ shall we? Smith claimed to have written an Egyptian grammar as a result of his translating activities.
As for the prophesies of Smith found in Doctrine and Covenant, you should all read D&C 132 where Emma Smith is commanded to receive Joseph Smith’s new wife (young) into her household. Imagine yourself as a middle-aged woman and your husband says “Hey, I got this revelation today … about marriage.” It’s good to be the Prophet.
who has been perma-banned by the Mormon missionaries. No, really. They won’t ever come to my house again. I have seen them walk by and not stop. Evidently, my entry in the Mormon data base has a big red ‘X’ though it.
3 June 2011 14:09 IanCad said…
As in most countries with electoral privileges, Americans vote with their pocket books. If the Tooth Fairy were to run it would likely win.
Apart from their fecundity, Mormons are recognized as clean cut, reliable, and hardworking citizens. They are grossly overrepresented in Congress.
Religion will not be much of an issue. As with their constitution it is much talked about but little understood.
3 June 2011 14:12 Xog Earthling outreach co-ordinator said…
Mitt has an excellent chance of becoming President, I shall fold space,land in Washington through a worm hole and run his campaign personally.
3 June 2011 14:15 Arvek the elder said…
“You may well *sigh*, Mr Cranny. You started it, matey.”
No he didn’t. YOU started it, when you invaded Vek during the fest of the legover. Bastards.
3 June 2011 14:24 The Patriot said…
Your Grace, I suspect that as a very rich chap this Mitt Romney will have as good a chance of anyone who has lots of cash to pay for adds. How far Romney gets, depends on who else in the GOP comes into the fray and whether or not Obama will get any real competition for the democrat nomination.
3 June 2011 14:28 For mash get smash aliens said…
3 June 2011 14:28 DaveRsaid…
1) You’re talking about the Book of Abraham, which is only a part of the Pearl of Great Price. The rest is not linked to Egyptian documents at all. It’s a bit of a problem if you’re misinformed as to what the PofGP is.
2) The recovered manuscripts, while matching the facisimilies, do not appear to have all the material or match the descriptions given of translated manuscript. I’ll note that neither contain the handwriting of Joseph smith.
3) Because you’re getting confused with the “Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar”. However, these aren’t in the handwriting of Joseph Smith either. In fact, it’s not entirely clear what these papers from Kirtland have to do with the Book of Abraham itself.
More responses on the topic available here: http://www.fairwiki.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri
3 June 2011 14:39 Twog, Private Secretary to Zog, King of Kolob said…
Mr Arvek the elder, our action on Vek was for their liberation from the Kleggerons (http://www.cleggeron.com/). It was carried out entirely at the request of the Arthropods’ Front for the Liberation of Vek, the only organisation that genuinely represents the inhabitants of that unhappy system. My agents tell me, Mr Arvek, that you speak for the bogus popular front for the restoration of the King of Vek — a shill for the external imperialist running dogs of Libidimus Minor.
3 June 2011 14:39 DaveRsaid…
I certainly agree with those above that comment that Mitt Romney has other political problems that may overshadow the religion issue
3 June 2011 14:41 D. Singhsaid…
There is a Mormon prophecy called the ‘White Horse Prophecy’ or the prophecy of the “One mighty and strong.” Now, this is not public, formal Mormon doctrine, but it was taught by many leaders of the Church and is still taught today. It is said by Mormon leadership that when the Constitution is in dire peril, one will come who is mighty and strong. He will come riding (figuratively perhaps) on a white horse and will wield awesome political and spiritual power.
This mysterious priesthood elder would somehow seize control of the US government to prevent the total abrogation of the Constitution. He would assume total power and create a Mormon “Kingdom” in America. At that time, this “one mighty and strong” would be proclaimed the new “Prophet “ (First President) of the Mormon church and would also be president of the United States. Thus, he would wield both supreme political power of the most powerful nation on earth and also be the “Prophet, Seer and Revelator” of the Mormon Church.
3 June 2011 14:41 tb said…
>Mormonism? Well, why not?
because it’s bollocks?
3 June 2011 14:49 Lord Lavendonsaid…
Your Grace, given that the American voters put, for the first time, a non-white into the white house (and one who many believe is a secret Muslim), then electing a Mormon wouldn’t be that difficult a leap for the American electorate.
Given that American politics is becoming more “Europeanised” in the sense that there are two parties which are more or less poles apart ideologically and on the great issues of the day, rather than being regional-religious-ethnic coalitions (e.g. in the days when the conservative south used to vote democrat come what may) then Romney can easily fit into the Republican stable, given the Mormon social values etc, although a Romney ticket would envoke the fury of core democrats and rally some of their key constituencies (gay vote, black vote, social liberals etc).
3 June 2011 14:52 Graham Davissaid…
John Tyndale said…
As usual Graham Davies exhibits his usual lack of respect towards the faithful- which is why his utopian “secular state” would take us back to the days of 1930s Russia.
Why should a religious belief deserve respect any more than political belief for example? Do you think Communism or National Socialism are deserving of respect?
3 June 2011 14:54 DaveRsaid…
@D. Singh – this would be the ‘White Horse prophecy’ that only appeared in 1900, and has been explicitly disavowed by the Church since then, including by Joseph F. Smith back in 1918, and more recently last year here: http://newsroom.lds.org/blog/church-statement-on-white-horse-prophecy-and-political-neutrality – meanwhile the ‘One mighty & strong’ is something separate, in D&C 85, and doesn’t mention the constitution or political power at all.
Take a step back and look at this thread. This thread has a number of individuals repeating whatever misinformation they’ve vaguely heard about the Latter-day Saints, and now we’re at the stage where we are accused of having a secret plan to take over the world. At this point, how is this thread much different from the Secret Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
3 June 2011 14:58 len said…
Joseph Smith liked the Bible so much he decided to write one Himself.
Jesus warns us of these ‘false prophets’and there seems to have been a plethora of them , all with their own special tweaks, and changes, traditions, and additions to the Truth of the Gospel.
Less(as the saying goes, especially with Scripture) is more.
3 June 2011 14:59 Lord Lavendonsaid…
OK, so where exactly is Kolob in relation to earth?
3 June 2011 15:03 English Vikingsaid…
Joseph Smith was a modern day Mo; claim a new (and final) revelation from the God of an existing religion, be the only person able to hear His new edicts (ususally stuff like the prophet is allowed to sleep with loads of women) and start an armed insurrection and attempt to overthrow the legally appointed Government by force.
Fortunately, someone had the good sense shoot this moron, and his drongo brother, before they were able to gain much ground.
Sci-fi, man-made clap-trap like this should not be pandered to, nor given the respectability of being called a Christian denomination. It should be ridiculed for the fairy story it is, and its followers should have a large dose of reality and scorn poured on them at regular intervals. Failure to do so will, in 1400 years or so, leave us in the same boat as we find ourselves in with the other nonsense known as islam.
3 June 2011 15:11 Lord Lavendonsaid…
Is it me or are there 2 threads here? One discussing the post itself and subsequent issues and the other between various ET’s about interstellar war?
3 June 2011 15:12 English Vikingsaid…
When Smith was dreaming all this crap up, space travel was impossible. Be nice if he was specific and it was within spitting distance.
I’ll wager that it is located some distance away from the furthest reaches of our space probes.
3 June 2011 15:13 Anonymous said…
Romney is out of touch with the tenor of the times. He’s not the solution, he’s the problem: a squishy liberal Republican whose politically correct policies contributed to the election of a Communist to the White House.
I wouldn’t worry too much about Romney. Sarah Palin–or someone else who loves the country and possesses a backbone–is going to be the next President.
3 June 2011 15:16 His Imperial Majesty, Master of the 7 Legions of Snark, Admiral of the 9th Fleet (the dog’s kolobs) said…
Quaxx dex thargo, you insolent riftkrule!
3 June 2011 15:16 DaveRsaid…
One wonders if you are putting your fingers in your ears. There was no attempt to overthrow the government. Of course, that’d leave you with little to justify your support for mob violence.
And *final* revelation? There’s no such thing in Mormonism (see 9th Article of Faith…)
3 June 2011 15:19 Lord Lavendonsaid…
I have to say that it all seems to be a bit fanciful for my tastes:
1. The golden plates which the Book of Mormon came from, went back to heaven, written in a language no-one knew, but could be translated into shakespearian english, by one person (?).
2. That the native americans are really descendants of Jews, who fled Israel just before the Bablyonian Captivity (?).
3.This bit about Kolob and humans being able to become gods as well- that Jesus is for some reason a “chief” god (sounds like zeus or ra) doesn’t seem to fit in with mainstream Christianity, be it Anglican,Protestant, Orthodox or Catholic.
3 June 2011 15:22 Siridar Baron Vladimir Harkonnen said…
Twog you coward, even as you speak my Sardaukar warriors are invading your planet and destroying your armies, the spice is ours!
3 June 2011 15:24 English Vikingsaid…
Ha! As you skirt the periphery of the Empire, bullying pathetic and insignificant life-forms with your backward ion-impulse ‘technology’, I and my legions are de-flowering the maidens of your nasty little asteroid, which you have left undefended!
What kind of Galactic Trooper are you?
3 June 2011 15:30 Lagomorphaian said…
“Mitt has an excellent chance of becoming President, I shall fold space,land in Washington through a worm hole and run his campaign personally.”
Actually old cock, you can’t open a wormhole inside a planet, because the energy of space-time would disort reality and fry the earth, or the bit below the wormhole hovering over (i.e. Washington DC). There is only one race which has the capability to open a wormhole inside a planet safely, and you arn’t it matey.
3 June 2011 15:33 Holy Chelonian Empire said…
Twog, beware for the Avek have just signed a treaty with us Chelonians- you will qiver inside your shells (if you had any) as the might Chelonian Empire crushes your world!
3 June 2011 15:39 Splog, Under-Secretary to Twog, Private Secretary to Zog, King of Kolob said…
Mr Lagomorphaian, in the matter of wormholes, see:
The arrogant spokesentity for the Holy Chelonian Empire warns my master, Twog, that we shall quiver inside our shells consequent on the Chelonian alliance with the Avek. We shall see, impertinent mollusc. We shall see…
My master requires me to tell you that he disdains to reply in person to your empty mega-groof-rattling. In future, instruct all three of your mouths to address their equals.
3 June 2011 15:52 Dr Who and Dr What`s brother Dr When said…
Xog, may I suggest after folding space from Kolog you use the space shuttle to complete your journey.
3 June 2011 15:52 Dr Who, Dr What and Dr When`s brother Dr Why said…
Does Kolob have a sister planet called Kellogg, if not it should.
3 June 2011 16:05 Book of ET said…
Chelonians are basically Turtles and Totoises?So that’s what ET’s look like.
3 June 2011 16:16 Len’s former lodger said…
Your Grace, looks like this thread has been taken over by a bunch of loons. But it is quite amusing for a friday evening.
3 June 2011 16:31 Bred in the bonesaid…
What bacame of the Deists argument of the founding fathers.
3 June 2011 16:38 Archbishop Cranmersaid…
Mr Dave R,
His Grace thanks for your Constitution correction: he has amended. But it is not clear to him at all where he has either misunderstood or misrepresented your beliefs.
3 June 2011 16:42 King Uranus III said…
His Imperial Majesty, Master of the 7 Legions of Snark, Admiral of the 9th Fleet (the dog’s kolobs) said…
Quaxx dex thargo, you insolent riftkrule!”
You assume Lavendon is an Earthling??
3 June 2011 16:43 Anonymous said…
Hmmm, neither Danjo or Dodo have posted today; for that matter neither has blofeld and tiddles. Where are these intellectual heavyweights when you need them?
3 June 2011 16:46 Mr Dodosaid…
Well, well, another religion getting a hammering on here today.
Admist all the very funny messages from beyond the earth, some have struggled to make serious points and given up.
I’ll wait until the debate becomes a bit more serious before throwing in my comments about the inevitability of religious and cultural relativism as a consequence of the internal logic of the protestant reformation.
For now I’ll waddle off and attend to nest building and making babies with the long lost Mrs Dodo.
3 June 2011 16:51 English Vikingsaid…
King Uranus III
Hail His Regal Eminence!
A good point. Surely this Lavendon creature is not a Thraxian spy?
Guards! Seize him!
3 June 2011 16:51 Klag, Kilngon Warrior said…
Dodo, of course the real reason why you won’t debate us is because we crushed your insignificant little planet and enslaved its cowardly population! Pacifist Qou’ath!
3 June 2011 16:58 English Vikingsaid…
Just for you, because you asked so nicely.
Catholicism is crap.
PS Glad you realise that Cat-lickism is a different religion to Christianity. You’re slowly getting it.
PPS Go to the match?
3 June 2011 16:58 His Imperial Majesty, Master of the 7 Legions of Snark, Admiral of the 9th Fleet (the dog’s kolobs) said…
Klag, Kilngon Warrior,
You do realise that, under the terms of Korellian Convention, you are expected to rape all prisoners, as sign of your seniority?
Poor little Dodo. You’re Klag’s bitch now.
3 June 2011 17:02 Klag, Klingon Warrior said…
A warning to His Imperial Majesty, Master of the 7 Legions of Snark, Admiral of the 9th Fleet (the dog’s kolobs)- Are you mad? Have you not heard of the stories about that man? God help you if you make him angry..
3 June 2011 17:02 Klag, Klingon Warrior said…
We decided to sell the Dodo planet, as part of our deficit reduction strategy and of course mating with a Dodo is the last thing a Klingon warrior would do!
3 June 2011 17:04 Lord Lavendonsaid…
So I’m now an Alien? Great.
Whatever gives you that idea?
3 June 2011 17:07 Mr Dodo`s double yolked egg said…
My shell is very thin, eat more grits.
3 June 2011 17:10 DaveRsaid…
“But it is not clear to him at all where he has either misunderstood or misrepresented your beliefs.”
Taking the items from your original post (and bearing in mind what constitutes official doctrine as noted here http://newsroom.lds.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine ):
1) “If believers are good and faithful, each will be given a planet of their own to rule.” – Not doctrine, & a caricature of what Mormons believe.
2) “The Mormon god lives in heaven in a polygamous relationship with multiple wives, and sexually reproduces.” – Not doctrine. The Church has no revealed position on how spirit children are born, nor on number of spouses.
3) “In common with Eastern religions, there is a variation on reincarnation as Mormons believe in the pre-existence of all people in heaven before they were born on earth.” The doctrine of preexistence is not reincarnation. For that matter, it is not unique to Mormonism.
4) “the Mormon Jesus was conceived and born in heaven first as a ‘spirit child’ by God the Father in union with one of his wives.” – Following on from above, not doctrine.
5) “Jesus was the first-born spirit child, and Lucifer was his second.” The first is true, the latter isn’t – I’m not sure where you’re dragging this from.
6) “The orthodox Christian teaching is that God became man and was born of a virgin. For Mormons, the heavenly man-god came to earth and had sexual relations with Mary, and Jesus was the result.” – False, as I pointed out above. LDS scripture affirms the virgin birth.
7) “Mormons do not believe in the eternal deity of Jesus: he became a god only after living a virtuous life on earth.” – False, as pointed out above. He created this world, was the God of the Old Testament, and constitutes a member of the Godhead with the Father & the Holy Ghost. This is different from mainstream Christian belief, yes, but your statement is not correct.
8) “He then appeared before the council of gods that meet near a star called Kolob, who declared him to be a god in the pantheon of gods.” – Following on from above, false.
9) “It is a religion of salvation by works, which even the Son of God has to earn.” False, as pointed out above. Works are essential, but without grace and the Atonement of Christ, futile. This is obviously different from the Protestant position, but Mormons do not believe we are saved by our works.
10) From your picture “God lives on a planet near a star named ‘Kolob'” – I quoted the relevant verse above ‘which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God’ (Abraham 3:9). Notice throne rather than planet. Can you not see the first description is as misrepresentative as describing the eucharist as ritual cannibalism? Likewise, while some LDS have interpreted the time issue in relation to creation, the Church has no official position on the length of creation. Furthermore, putting “Urim & Thummim” in quotation marks as if something entirely foreign, rather than a term that exists in the Bible, could be construed as misleading. ‘Kolob’, in any case, is peripheral to LDS theology, hence its mention in only one chapter.
Those should be sufficient to suggest a serious misreading of Mormonism and its texts. Certainly there are large differences between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and mainstream Christianity. Our conceptions of the Godhead are different – we reject the trinity, and certain do not conceive of a sharp division between created and uncreated, for example. We certainly reject both sola scriptura and sola fide. But the assertions listed above assert things as LDS doctrine where they are not, or in a misleading form.
3 June 2011 17:19