Why would the Mormons believe that Adolf Hitler can be transferred from “spirit prison” and get into heaven?

 

Adolph Hitler

One of the most evil men known. Who
brought about what millions perceive as the darkest days in world history.

Although none can imagine and many even shudder to think at the
possibility of this man calling upon God’s grace in the Cross of Christ in his
last hours, there is one Church that does not believe he needed to do so in
order to go to heaven.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

 

 

Why would the Mormons believe that Adolf Hitler can be transferred from
“spirit prison” and get into heaven?

It is not because they believe the grace of God can extend to the most evil
of men, but because of their practice known as “Baptism For The Dead”.

What is Baptism for the dead? Mormons teach that there are 3 separate levels
of heaven. Evil people leave this world and are kept in spirit prison where they
have a chance to hear and receive the “Mormon gospel”. In the mean time, Mormons
who are alive are being baptized for their dead relatives so the dead relative
will be allowed into heaven after receiving the “gospel” in the spirit prison.

LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith explained: “The Lord will judge each
individual case and will assign transgressor to that degree to which each is
entitled according to his works. If a man only merits a place in the telestial,
that will be his reward; if it should be the terrestrial, then he shall be
admitted to that kingdom. In order to enter the celestial a man must be true and
faithful to the end, observing all things which the Lord has commanded,
otherwise he shall be assigned to some other kingdom, or to outer darkness if
his sins so merit” (Doctrines of Salvation 3:310).

These beliefs are taken from very poor Biblical interpretation by LDS
General Authorities who like to read things into these verses of the Apostles,
Paul and Peter, that simply are not there. (1
Cor. 15:29
, 1
Cor. 15:40-41
, 1
Peter 3:19-20
)
Click here for more on these
verses: Baptism For The
Dead?

Yet, what do Mormon Church officials do when they are questioned about their
gospel extending to Adolf Hitler? Are they open in exclaiming the grace of God
to all, or are they coy in their dealing with questions? The following report is
what happens when questions arise concerning the pratice of “Baptism For the
Dead”.

The Mormon Church Attempts to Conceal Temple Records for Adolf Hitler Special
Report by Helen Radkey
(Taken from the May/June 1999 Edition of
“The Evangel” a Utah Missions Inc. Publication — )

On August 30, 1998, Don McAreavy, of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, wrote to the
LDS Family History Library asking if LDS proxy temple work had been performed
for Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun. McAreavy specifically wanted to know if temple
ordinances had been performed for Hitler and Braun on September 28, 1993, in the
Jordan River Temple, Utah.

A response to this inquiry was sent to McAreavy on September 8, 1998. Typed
on an official letterhead of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
the letter was signed by Mae Dean Ashton. The address of the sender was shown
as: Family History Library, 35 North West Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
84150-3400.

Ashton’s reply reads as follows:

DON McAREAVY

Dear Mr. McAreavy:
Thank you for your letter of August 30th regarding
temple ordinances for Adolph Hitler and Eva Braun. We searched the International
Genealogical Index TM Addendum and found no information listed for either. The
enclosed printout is the closest we could find and you will note that birthdates
are 1836 and 1838. No additional information is available.

Sincerely,

Mae Dean Ashton
Team Leader
Photo duplication Unit

The printout Ashton sent McAreavy shows LDS proxy ordinances that have been
performed for Alois Hiedler or Heidler (Hitler), the father of Adolf Hitler.

In October 1998, McAreavy was able to obtain copies of LDS temple ordinance
records for Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun from Philip Roberts of the North American
Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. These IGI (International
Genealogical Index) copies reveal that Adolf Hitler was “baptized” and “endowed”
on December 10, 1993, and “sealed” to his parents on March 12, 1994. These
events took place in the London Temple, England.

Roberts’ copies also show that Hitler was ‘sealed” to Braun on September 28,
1993, in the Jordan River Temple, Utah and on June 14, 1994, in the Los Angeles
Temple. Roberts sent copies of these records to Ashton.

McAreavy sent another mailing to Ashton on October 17, 1998, again asking her
if she could locate information for Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun in LDS files. On
November 17, 1998, McAreavy mailed a double registered letter to Ashton. He
reminded her that Roberts had sent documentation to her that seemed to indicate
that the Mormon Church had done templeordinances for Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun.

“Would you please be kind enough to verify if the information that Philip
Roberts provided is both accurate and proof that temple ordinances were
performed for Adolf Hitler,” McAreavy wrote.

Ashton replied to McAreavy’s November 17 letter on December 2, 1998. She
again insisted that the (Alois Hitler) copies she had sent McAreavy with her
September 8 letter were all that could be located in the IGI TM (Addendum).
McAreavy was informed that he could soon expect to receive a reply from the
(Family History) Department Director.

On December 29, 1998, McAreavy again wrote to Ashton. He requested the name
and mailing address of the Department Director because he had received no
communication from that person as promised by Ashton. When there was no response
to this request, McAreavy wrote directly to the Department Director of the
Photo- duplication Department of the Family History Library on January 25, 1999.
McAreavy again asked if the Mormon Church had done temple ordinances for Hitler
and Braun.

The following reply, again typed on an official letterhead of The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, dated March 16, 1999, was sent to McAreavy
from the Family History Library:

To Whom It May Concern:

Subject: Famous or Historical Figures

You recently wrote to
inquire if temple ordinances have been performed for a famous or historical
figure. As a matter of policy, we respond to such requests only when those
making the request are directly related to the person about whom they seek
information. It might be helpful to know that, as an institution, we have no
control over the names individuals submit to receive temple ordinances. However,
we strongly counsel Church members to submit only the names of those persons to
whom they are related. Furthermore, we believe that ordinances performed in
behalf of any deceased individual are valid only if that person is worthy of and
chooses to accept what has been done in his or her behalf. The Church spends a
great deal of time, effort, and money to make information available that helps
not only its members, but all who are interested in family history pursuits. You
are welcome to use the resources we provide. We hope you find satisfaction in
doing so.

Sincerely,

Family History Department

In this impersonal communication to McAreavy, thc LDS Family History
Department clearly avoided taking responsibility for the discrepancy between
Ashton’s September 8 denial of LDS temple work for Hitler and Braun and the IGI
copies, supplied by Roberts, which seem to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that
this notoriously well-known pair have, indeed, had proxy LDS ordinances
performed on their behalf.

At the time McAreavy made his initial inquiry to the Family History Library
on August 30, there were multiple entries in LDS temple ordinance files that
showed that Mormons have performed various rituals on behalf of Hitler and
Braun. These records can still be accessed. Ashton gave McAreavy incorrect
information. Was this a deliberate evasion of truth? What are the facts?

Current IGI TM addendum temple ordinance entries for Mr. (Adolf) Hiedler
(Hitler) show that Hitler was “baptized” by Mormons on September 30, 1993, and
“endowed” on April 27, 1994, in the Jordan River Temple, Utah. This record was
in the IGI TM Addendum at the time of Ashton’s denial to McAreavy (of temple
ordinance information for Adolf Hitler) on September 8. I obtained a copy of
this particular record for Hitler from the LDS Family Search Center in the
Joseph Smith Memorial Building in downtown Salt Lake City on July l3, 1998 —
less than two months before Ashton stated that no such IGI record existed for
Hitler!

If Ashton and her co-workers were not very efficient in their search for
Adolf Hitler temple ordinance entries in the LDS genealogical computer system,
the same could be said for their lack of thorougliness in locating the same type
of records for Eva Braun.

Eva Anna Paula Braun, born in Munich, Bavaria, Germany, on February 7, 1912,
was “baptized” by Mormons on October 16, 1964, and “endowed” on February 5,
1965, in the Los Angeles Temple. She had been ‘sealed” to her parents some time
prior to 1970. This information is current and is easily accessible in the IGI
TM Addendum, in which file Ashton stated that no information was available for
either Hitler or Braun. Genuine seekers should have found these entries for
Braun.

In this case, it seems these records may have been intentionally overlooked.
Was it easier for McAreavy to be given inaccurate information rather than
present him with any copies that he could possibly have used against the Mormon
Church? 0r,are the staff of the Family History Library so poorly skilled at
accessing their own computer files that they missed the entries in question?

In addition to the IGI, which is a huge database of names and vital
information for multi-millions of people, with an Ordinance Index attached, the
other significant LDS genealogical file is the Ancestral File. In this family
history archive, LDS ordinance records may be found attached to pedigree charts.

There are currently Ancestral File ordinance records that show that Adolf
Hitler was “baptized” on September 4, 1993, “endowed” on October 12, 1993, and
“sealed” to his parents and also Eva Braun on June 14, 1994 in the Los Angeles
Temple. The June 14 sealing of Hitler and Braun is the same sealing of which
Roberts sent copies to McAreavy and Ashton. These entries could once be found in
the IGI. They have since been deleted, along with other entries for prominent
Nazis. What is going on here?

Prior to adding the 1997 edition to the IGI, it seems that the Mormon Church,
intent on preserving its public image, attempted to remove the names of
well-known Nazis from the IGI files. Most of the IGI entries for Adolf Hitler,
Mrs.(Adolf Hitler), Adolf Eichmann, Paul Joseph Goebbels, Hermann Goering,
Rudolf Hess, and Heinrich Himmler were quietly removed. Also erased were the
records for Benito Mussolini, the dictator of Fascist Italy from 1922 to l943
and an ally of Hitler and the Third Reich.

But the deletion effort was botched. Some entries were missed, such as the
ones still current for Hitler and Braun in the IGI and Ancestral File. The IGI
ordinance records for Hitler’s deputy, Rudolf Hess, which correctly showed his
place of birth as Alexandria, Egypt, were deleted yet other TGI ordinance
entries still exist for Hess, wrongly listing his place of birth as Germany.

Also missed were LDS ordinance records, which still exist in the Ancestral
File, for Paul Joseph Goebbels and Hermann Goering These entries, which include
baptisms for each of them, may have been intentionally removed from the IGI
files.

Mormons apparently overlooked the LDS ordinance records of other well-known
Nazis during their IGI purge. These records are currently accessible. Included
in this liberal list are: Reinhard Heydrich, “The Father of The Final Solution”
Hitler’s plan to exterminate all Jews in Europe; Alfred Rosenberg, hanged at
hanged at Nuremberg for war crimes; Ernst Roehm, once the thuggish leader of
Hitler’s Storm Troopers; and Field Marshall Erwin Rommel, the Famous Desert Fox
of World War II.

In May 1994 and March 1996, from LDS genealogical centers I obtained numerous
Nazi IGI entries that have since been deleted. In this collection are copies of
the LDS records for Hitler and Braun that Roberts sent to McAreavy and Ashton,
with the additional sealing of Adolf Hitler to his parents on June 14, 1994.

I have IGI copies of all the LDS ordinance records for Hitler, which are
currently in the Ancestral File but no longer in the IGI. As well, my copies
show another baptism for Hitler, almost identical to the one still in the IGI
files under Heidler (Hitler) with the same ordinance dates. But the deleted
entry is listed as Hitler (Hiedler) Adolf, showing a birth date of l889. The
Hiedler (Hitler) entry shows a birth date of 1891so they are different records.

A mysterious record for a Mr. Hitler, of Vienna, Austria, with date of death
1900, and showing a proxy baptism date of April 15,1924, in the Logan Temple,
Utah, is also no longer in the IGI files. Other vanished IGI entries are a
sealing of Adolf Hitler to Eva Braun on October 19, 1993, at the Jordan River
Temple, and a baptism for Mrs. Hitler (Hiedler) on September 10, 1993, and an
endowment for her on March 17, 1994, also in the Jordan River Temple.

The Mormon Church has attempted to deliberately conceal LDS temple ordinances
for Adolf Hitler. This first occurred with the disappearance of many of the IGI
records for Hitler and other publicly known evildoers of the Third Reich. Then
— there was a second attempt to cover-up Nazi records who Ashton told McAreavy
that no LDS temple ordinances had been performed for Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun.

Even when confronted by Robert with IGI temple records for Hitler and Braun,
those in charge of the Family History Department at the Family History Library,
representing the genealogical arm of the Mormon Church, did not want to lake
responsibility for these records. Their implausible excuse was that they have no
control over the names individuals submit to receive temple ordinances.

Like a slippery snake in the grass, the Mormon Church may have tried to dodge
public criticism by denying its questionable proxy recognition of Adolf Hitler
the amoral and evil Nazi genius who was responsible for the terror and barbarism
of the Third Reich and the loss of millions of innocent lives before and during
World War II. But LDS ordinance records speak for themselves–Mormons have
repeatedly claimed the unpopular Hitler. Anything stated to the contrary cannot
alter this conclusion.

Deception is not the hallmark of a church with integrity. As the Mormon
Church will eventually find out even the most artful serpent can be choked by
its own coils!

“Mitt Romney Mitt Romney-Sarah Palin in 2012? You betcha! OR Palin-Romney

 “Mitt Romney Mitt Romney-Sarah Palin in 2012? You betcha!

By Edward Mason, Hillary Chabot and Jessica Van Sack

Thursday, April 15, 2010 – Updated 1h ago

E-mail   Print   (179) Comments   Text size   Share   Buzz up!Conservative superstar Sarah Palin opened the door yesterday to joining forces with Mitt Romney for a 2012 White House run – a hot ticket that has some Republicans licking their chops at the prospect of unseating President Obama.

“Sounds pretty good,” Palin declared at yesterday’s Tea Party Express rally on the Common when asked about pairing up with the former Bay State governor – giving the idea a big thumbs-up as she left the stage after her headline speech.

Last night, as Palin stopped for cannoli at Mike’s Pastry in the North End, she said she was “serious” about the idea.

“I have a lot of respect for Mitt,” she told the Herald.

Asked who would be on top of the ticket, Palin roared, “Ha! I haven’t even thought that far ahead yet.”

Indeed, Palin said she hasn’t decided whether she’ll run in 2012 – with or without Romney.

Romney, a presumptive 2012 Republican presidential contender who recently embarked on a nationwide book tour, has not ruled out an alliance with Palin, the GOP’s 2008 vice presidential candidate.

respects Sarah Palin and he appreciates the contributions she makes to the party,” said Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom. “But his immediate focus is on helping Republicans win back the Congress in 2010.”

Some veteran political observers were intrigued by the notion of the two telegenic former GOP governors on the same ticket.

“They both have a lot they can offer a campaign,” said Douglas Lorenz, a California-based GOP consultant. “Romney has the experience as a governor and experience as a candidate for president, and when you combine that with Sarah Palin’s ability to get people motivated, that could definitely be a formidable ticket.”

Republican gubernatorial candidate Christy Mihos called the matchup “the best of both worlds.”

“They both come at it from totally different parts of the spectrum,” said Mihos, who attended yesterday’s Tea Party rally. “One deals on a gut level with people and the other is highly successful on the business end of things.”

Speaking before a rapt crowd estimated at 5,000, Palin squarely targeted Democrats, pounding away at Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package. She also lobbied for domestic oil drilling.

“I want to tell ’em, ‘Nah, we’ll keep clinging to our Constitution and our guns and religion – and you can keep the change,” Palin said, later adding, “Yeah, let’s drill, baby, drill; not stall, baby, stall – you betcha.”

Meanwhile, Palin said last night she had no hard feelings about U.S. Sen. Scott Brown’s decision to skip the rally. “He was in Washington doing his job,” she said.

State Treasurer Tim Cahill, who also is running for governor as an independent, joked that a prospective alliance between Palin and Romney would “a good-looking ticket.”

Social Conservative’s Ad Warns McCain: “No Mitt”

NO MILITARY SERVICE FOR ROMNEY’S 5 SONS

What Is It About Mormonism?

Our post-denominational age should be the perfect time for a Mormon to become president, or at least the Republican nominee. Mormons share nearly all the conservative commitments so beloved of the evangelicals who wield disproportionate influence in primary elections. Mormons also embody, in their efficient organizational style, the managerial competence that the party’s pro-business wing considers attractive. For the last half-century, Mormons have been so committed to the Republican Party that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints once felt the need to clarify that Republican affiliation is not an actual condition of church membership.

Yet the Mormons’ political loyalty is not fully reciprocated by their fellow Republicans. Twenty-nine percent of Republicans told the Harris Poll last year that they probably or definitely would not vote for a Mormon for president. Among evangelicals, some of the discomfort is narrowly religious: Mormon theology is sometimes understood as non-Christian and heretical. Elsewhere, the reasons for the aversion to Mormons are harder to pin down — bigotry can be funny that way — but they are certainly not theological. A majority of Americans have no idea what Mormons believe.

Mormonism’s political problem arises, in large part, from the disconcerting split between its public and private faces. The church’s most inviting public symbols — pairs of clean-cut missionaries in well-pressed white shirts — evoke the wholesome success of an all-American denomination with an idealistic commitment to clean living. Yet at the same time, secret, sacred temple rites and garments call to mind the church’s murky past, including its embrace of polygamy, which has not been the doctrine or practice of the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or LDS, for a century. Mormonism, it seems, is extreme in both respects: in its exaggerated normalcy and its exaggerated oddity. The marriage of these opposites leaves outsiders uncomfortable, wondering what Mormonism really is.

For Mitt Romney, the complex question of anti-Mormon bias boils down to the practical matter of how he can make it go away. Facing a traditional American anti-Catholicism, John F. Kennedy gave a speech during the 1960 presidential campaign declaring his private religion irrelevant to his qualifications for public office. For Romney, a Republican who would risk alienating “values voters” if he denied faith a central role in politics, emphasizing the separation of church and state is not an option. In his own religion speech, he coupled his promise to govern independently of the hierarchy of his own church with a profession of faith: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind.” Although this formulation is unlikely to satisfy those evangelicals who deny that the LDS church is Christian, Romney presumably calculated that speaking about Jesus Christ in terms that sound consistent with ordinary American Protestantism would reassure voters that there was in the end nothing especially unusual about Mormonism.

Something troubling is afoot here. From a constitutional standpoint, the religion of a candidate is supposed to make no difference. Even before the founding fathers dreamed up the First Amendment, they inserted a provision in the Constitution expressly prohibiting any religious test for office. The framers recognized, of course, that a candidate’s religion (or lack thereof) would enter political debate, and they were prohibiting only a formal test for taking office. But they were also giving their imprimatur to Jefferson’s appealing notion that a person’s beliefs about religion were no more relevant to his politics than his beliefs about geometry. Romney, by contrast, was staking his character and values on his religious beliefs while insisting that no one ask what those beliefs are.

It is easy to see why Romney would see some aspects of his Mormon identity as an asset. In the elite East Coast worlds where Romney has made his career, Mormonism signifies personal rectitude, professional competence and an idiosyncratic-but-impressive rejection of alcohol and caffeine. If anything, the systematic overrepresentation of Mormons among top businesspeople and lawyers affords LDS affiliation a certain cachet — rather like being Jewish, but taller.

Still, even among those who respect Mormons personally, it is still common to hear Mormonism’s tenets dismissed as ridiculous. This attitude is logically indefensible insofar as Mormonism is being compared with other world religions. There is nothing inherently less plausible about God’s revealing himself to an upstate New York farmer in the early years of the Republic than to the pharaoh’s changeling grandson in ancient Egypt. But what is driving the tendency to discount Joseph Smith’s revelations is not that they seem less reasonable than those of Moses; it is that the book containing them is so new. When it comes to prophecy, antiquity breeds authenticity. Events in the distant past, we tend to think, occurred in sacred, mythic time. Not so revelations received during the presidencies of James Monroe or Andrew Jackson.

For some, then, the objection to Romney may be that Mormonism is religiously false and that voters should choose a president who belongs to the true faith. If many Americans felt this way, that would be bad news for Romney but worse news for the country, since it would mean that we had abandoned the values that underlay the constitutional ban on religious tests. But most Mormonism-related discomfort with Romney may, in fact, reflect less a view of religious truth than a sense that there is something vaguely troubling or unfamiliar in the Mormon manner or worldview. This latter possibility presents Romney with an especially tricky political problem. For such reservations are not simple prejudice; they are a complicated outgrowth of the tortured history of the faith’s relationship to mainstream American political life over the nearly two centuries since God first spoke to Joseph Smith.

Persecution and the Art of Secrecy

Mormonism was born amid secrecy, and throughout its existence as a religion it has sustained a close yet complex relationship to the arts of silence. From the start, the Mormon penchant for secrecy came from two different sources. The first was internal and theological. Like many great world faiths, Mormonism has an important strand of sacred mystery. Mormon temples have traditionally been closed to outsiders and designed with opaque windows. Marriage and other key rituals take place in this hallowed space — a manifestation of religious secrecy familiar to students of world religion but associated in the United States more with Freemasonry than with mainstream Protestantism.

Like Mormon ritual, much of Mormon theology remains relatively inaccessible to outsiders. The text of the Book of Mormon has always been spread to a broad audience, but the text is not a sufficient guide to understanding the details of Mormon teaching. Joseph Smith received extensive further revelation in the nature of sacred secrets to be shared with only a handful of close associates and initiates within the newly forming church.

The most famous such revelation was the doctrine of celestial — which was to say plural — marriage, revealed to Smith as early as 1833 but never publicized during his lifetime and formally announced to the world only in 1852, eight years after his death. And there were other doctrines of similar secrecy revealed to Smith, especially in the years just before his death. “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret,” he is reported to have said in one of his last communications with his followers.

The connections between the sacred and the secret in early Mormonism did not come out of nowhere. Believers, of course, consider the source to be divine inspiration — although over the course of the last century Mormon teaching has moved away from many of Smith’s more radical ideas, which are often not accepted by contemporary LDS members. Academic students of early Mormonism have traced the mysteries expounded by Smith to the hermetic tradition of secret magic dating back to the Renaissance and beyond. If this account is accurate, then Mormonism’s theological secrets actually have more than a little in common with religious mysteries that can be found in medieval Islamic esotericism, kabbalistic mysticism and ancient Christian Gnosticism. Successive generations have rediscovered these secrets and reasserted their antiquity in ways very similar to Smith’s discovery of ancient tablets. For example, the most important work of the kabbalah, the Zohar, presents itself as a lost manuscript written by the 2nd-century mystic Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai, though scholars maintain that it was composed in the 13th century by the man who “discovered” it.

The greatest difference between the esoteric tradition and Smith’s version of it is that Smith’s faith has grown into an organized religion rather than remaining the preserve of a select few. Almost from the start of his career, Smith was denounced as a charlatan, an impostor and worse. Such criticisms sometimes pointed to his early pre-revelation career as a treasure seeker who used techniques like the seer stone (similar in function to a crystal ball) and the divining rod to seek treasure in the countryside of upstate New York. Notwithstanding these attacks, Mormonism grew steadily. Growth brought publicity — and with it came not merely prejudice but outright persecution. This external persecution created a second, externally driven source for secrecy: protection.

Not content with polemics, Mormonism’s opponents turned to violence. In 1838, after skirmishes between armed Mormons and state militia left several people dead, Gov. Lilburn Boggs of Missouri issued a military order declaring that the Mormons had made open war on the state and that therefore they “must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state, if necessary, for the public good.” Later, at Nauvoo, Ill., the Mormon community under Smith’s leadership came under constant pressure from skeptical and sometimes violent neighbors. In response, Smith sought and received a measure of home rule for Nauvoo, including the authority to establish his own municipal militia. Though the militia grew until it was a substantial fighting force, Smith was nevertheless gunned down by a kind of quasi-organized lynch mob after having been arrested and jailed in nearby Carthage.

Unhindered by Smith’s death, the Mormons, now under the leadership of Brigham Young, went out to Utah to establish their own kingdom. In what felt like the relative safety of the intermountain West, Mormons began to practice plural marriage in the open — and ended up paying dearly for this lapse in secrecy. In 1856 the Republican Party made the defeat of polygamy a key plank in its first national platform, characterizing it alongside slavery as one of the “twin relics of barbarism.” The federal government soon criminalized the practice and then in effect outlawed membership in the Mormon Church until it would agree to give up polygamy. The Mormons appealed this persecution to the Supreme Court, which turned them down flat, holding that religious belief was protected by the First Amendment but that religious conduct was not. After the Civil War, federal prosecutors in the Utah territory and in neighboring areas convicted and jailed thousands of Mormons in the most coordinated campaign of religious repression in U.S. history.

The reaction of the Mormon Church to this new wave of persecution was, initially, to take refuge in secrecy once again. In 1890, the president of the church, Wilford Woodruff, issued a manifesto in which he gave his “advice” to members of the Mormon Church not to enter into any marital relationships that would violate the laws of the land. Publicly this declaration had its desired effect of placating the federal government; in 1896, Utah was allowed to become a state. But like Jewish rituals under the Spanish Inquisition, plural marriage continued, secretly in Utah and also among refugees (like several of Mitt Romney’s ancestors), who fled to Mexico or other places the law could not reach.

This period of resisting persecution by living outside the law taught Mormons that secrecy can be a necessary tool for survival. As one apostle (there are 12 who guide the church) later put it in a speech recounted by the historian Kathleen Flake, “I am not dishonest and not a liar . . . [but] we have always been taught that when the brethren were in a tight place that it would not be amiss to lie to help them out.” Yet such secrecy, reminiscent of the taqiyya or dissimulation sanctioned by Shiite Islam under the threat of persecution, could be difficult to maintain. Matters came to a head when another apostle, Reed Smoot, was elected in 1903 to the U.S. Senate as a Republican from Utah, despite political opposition from
President Theodore Roosevelt. Opponents of Mormonism, mostly Protestants, sought to block Smoot from taking his seat.
Over several years, the Senate engaged in a series of hearings that put Mormonism on trial. The president of the church, Joseph F. Smith, a nephew of the founding Smith, was called to testify and sought somewhat unsuccessfully to conceal both the continuing practice of plural marriage as well as his own status as seer and revelator. After returning to Utah, Smith issued a manifesto of his own, in 1904, this one somewhat stronger, aimed at ending plural marriage. After that, plural marriage gradually disappeared from the mainstream Mormon scene, until it remained only among peripheral fundamentalist or sectarian Mormons who defied the church authorities and claimed a more authentic line of succession to the first prophet. In 1907, the Senate finally voted to seat Smoot. The course was set for the Mormon religious practice of the 20th century: a process of mainstreaming, both political and theological, and would set the stage for Mitt Romney’s run for the presidency.

The Mormon path to normalization over the course of the 20th century depended heavily on this avoidance of public discussion of its religious tenets. Now that plural marriage was out of the picture, the less said the better about the particular teachings of the church, including such practices as the baptism of the dead and the doctrine of the perfectibility of mankind into divine form. Where religious or theological conversation could not be avoided, Mormons depicted themselves as yet another Christian denomination alongside various other Protestant denominations that prevailed throughout the United States.

Another part of the Mormon assimilationist strategy was to participate actively in politics at the state and national levels. The condition for political success was that nobody asked about the precise content of Mormon religious beliefs and the Mormons themselves made no particular effort to tell. If 19th-century Mormon secrecy was a matter of survival, 20th-century Mormon reticence was a form of soft secrecy, designed to avoid soft bigotry. Revealing Mormon teachings would no longer have led to lynch mobs or federal arrest, but it certainly would have fueled the kind of bias that keeps politicians out of office.

What helped Mormons in maintaining theological radio silence was the way that American political norms until the late 1970s made religion a taboo subject in polite civil and political society. Probably the high point of the Mormon mainstreaming process took place when Ezra Taft Benson, like Smoot an apostle of the church, became secretary of agriculture under President Dwight D. Eisenhower. In just a century, the leaders of the Latter-day Saints had gone from being murdered outcasts to being appointed to the cabinet. Mormons began to succeed in national business and came to be seen as exemplars of the patriotic American ethos. George Romney, Mitt’s father, became chairman of the American Motors Corporation in 1954 and was elected governor of Michigan in 1962. Soft secrecy was holding soft bigotry at bay.

Romney and Mormon Politics

In politics, Joseph Smith was something of a radical. He preached, instead of democracy, a version of theocratic rule within a framework given by his own prophetic leadership. At Nauvoo, Smith affected a Napoleonic uniform and made himself into a general and quasi king of the polity he had constituted. He claimed that the home-rule permission given to the town by the State Legislature rendered him the equivalent of a governor or perhaps even president of a little republic on a par with the state of Illinois in which it resided. At the time he was assassinated, he was running for the presidency of the United States in a quixotic campaign that only a true person of faith could have believed in.

Ensconced in Salt Lake City, Brigham Young modified this initial political vision somewhat. Yet he still governed in an essentially autocratic fashion, constrained by only the federal requirement that Utah take on a republican form of government in order to be organized into a territory. In the territorial period, the Utah State Legislature remained very much under the control of the leadership of the church, and the democratic trappings of elections did not ensure real competitive politics. Mormons belonged to a single party, the People’s Party, which was not disbanded until 1891, when the LDS leadership determined it would need Republicans and Democrats in order to persuade Congress to grant statehood. Even then local LDS leaders apparently assigned church members almost at random to join one of the two parties in roughly equal numbers.

As of the 20th century, through engagement with the federal political sphere, Mormons came to embrace fully the American ideals of multi-party governance and electoral democracy. They also gradually embraced the Republican Party itself — a fact that would not seem so remarkable today were it not for the G.O.P.’s history of condemning Mormonism.

The Mormons’ passage from bugbears of the Republican Party to its stalwarts may be analogized to a similar move among middle-class white Southerners, to whom the Republican Party was anathema until the 1970s and ’80s, after which it became almost the sole representative. In the case of Southern whites, a particular event shifted party allegiance, namely the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as promoted and passed by President Lyndon Johnson. Johnson knew he would be alienating Southern whites with the act, yet he went forward with it anyway.

In the case of the Mormons, however, no single event pushed them in the direction of Republicanism. To the extent that 19th-century Mormons sided with any national political force, it was the Democratic Party, the party of states’ rights — of great interest to Utah Mormons trying to buck federal control. What made the Mormons Republican was simply their move toward the conservative center of American public opinion. With Eisenhower especially, the Mormons found a leader they could admire and with whom they could work. Ike himself was famously indifferent toward the particularities of religious doctrine. Moderate Republicanism was therefore the perfect conduit for bringing Mormons into the American political mainstream.

According to Jan Shipps, a renowned scholar of Mormon history, anticommunism also played an important role in making Mormons Republican — Ezra Taft Benson, the apostle who became secretary of agriculture under Eisenhower, had ties to the John Birch Society. In the 1960s, as the Democratic Party increasingly began to embrace an agenda of civil and cultural liberties, the Mormon allegiance to Republicanism was cemented further still. Gone was the political radicalism and the concern for minority rights that accompanied plural marriage and other unusual Mormon behavior. Now the Mormons could look at the counterculture as a threat. The most prominent Mormon national politician in the 1980s and ’90s was Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, now in his 31st year in the Senate, who on the Judiciary Committee has maintained a consistently conservative position, favoring judges who are simultaneously favored by the religious right.

The rise of the religious right posed a tricky political quandary for the LDS church. On the one hand, a vocal movement pressing for conservatism and moral values must have seemed to them like a natural home. After all, they, too, were religious believers who drew upon their faith for their political conservatism. Yet there was a strand of the religious right that could potentially put it at odds with Mormonism — its barely concealed commitment to evangelical Protestant theology.

Evangelical ideology was certainly flexible. Before Roe v. Wade, for example, abortion was not a major issue for most Protestant evangelicals in the United States, and it took the active efforts of the Catholic Church to bring evangelicals on board. Yet despite being pliant on some substantive issues, Protestant evangelicals nonetheless did share a commitment to biblical inerrancy and to a rather strict definition of salvation by faith alone. Their worldview certainly relied upon some basic and nonnegotiable propositions, like the acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity and of Jesus Christ as a personal lord and savior.

Mormons were able to argue that they, too, believed in salvation and in the literal accuracy of the Bible. The difficulty was that in addition to the Bible in its King James Version, the Latter-day Saints had further scriptures with which to contend — the Book of Mormon, translated by Smith from “reformed Egyptian” and styled as “another Testament of Jesus Christ”; and supplements to various biblical texts known collectively as the Pearl of Great Price.

Whatever the variances among the four synoptic gospels, contemporary evangelicals, like their forebears, have long been committed to the exclusivity of these texts. Newly unearthed gospels or pseudo-gospels (like the so-called Gospel of Thomas, written in the Egyptian language Coptic and found at Nag Hammadi in 1945) have posed few theological doubts for these Protestant evangelicals, who have dismissed them as foreign heretical works, despite their antiquity. Against this backdrop, the rejection of the Mormon Bible is simple and formulaic. Coupled with concerns about what they consider Mormonism’s nontrinitarian theology, it has led ineluctably to an unwillingness to recognize Mormons as full participants in the category “Christian.”

In theory, the evangelical political movement says that it is prepared to embrace Jews and even Muslims so long as they share the same common values of the religious right. In the case of a Mormon candidate, though, many evangelicals are not prepared to say that common values are enough. The reason seems to be the view among evangelicals that the substantive theological beliefs of Mormons are so radically different from their own as to constitute not a sect of Christianity but a Christian heresy, which would be worse than a different monotheistic faith like Judaism or Islam. One prominent evangelical, the Southern Baptist Richard Land, has proposed that Mormonism be considered a fourth Abrahamic religion — a compromise view that has found few takers in the evangelical camp and privately infuriates Mormons who insist on their Christianity.

Faced with the allegation that they do not believe in the same God as ordinary Protestants, or that their beliefs are not truly Christian, Mormons find themselves in an extraordinarily awkward position. They cannot defend themselves by expressly explaining their own theology, because, taken from the standpoint of orthodox Protestantism in America today, it is in fact heterodox.

What is more, what began as a strategy of secrecy to avoid persecution has become over the course of the 20th century a strategy of minimizing discussion of the content of theology in order to avoid being treated as religious pariahs. As a result, Mormons have not developed a series of easily expressed and easily swallowed statements summarizing the content of their theology in ways that might arguably be accepted by mainline Protestants. To put it bluntly, the combination of secret mysteries and resistance in the face of oppression has made it increasingly difficult for Mormons to talk openly and successfully with outsiders about their religious beliefs.

Assimilation, Culture And Compromise

The general pattern of Mormon history is one of growth leading to external pressure being brought to bear on the church. Internal resistance eventually gives way to change sanctioned by new revelation, followed in turn by new growth and success. This was the pattern not only for the abolition of polygamy but also for the extension in 1978 of the Mormon priesthood to black men. Mitt Romney’s run for the presidency is the occasion for the latest round in this cycle, with cultural and religious skepticism representing the vector for outside pressure. What will Romney — or the church — do in response?

One option is for Romney to try to devise a new language for talking about his religious beliefs that will make them seem accessible and familiar without compromising them. Romney has expressly said that he will not take this tack — but inevitably he has done so, and if he is chosen as the Republican candidate or elected to the presidency, he will have to do more. This could prove a tricky undertaking, full of pitfalls to the believer. Thus Romney has felt the need to minimize the centrality of Mormon scripture by saying that he reads the Gideon Bible when he is alone in his hotel room on the campaign trail.

The formulation may be seen as a clever hedge: to the ordinary Protestant listener, it sounds as if Romney is saying that he reads the same Bible that they do. To the Mormon insider, however, Romney is simply saying that when he travels to the hotel and finds himself, presumably, without a handy copy of the Book of Mormon, he reads the text of the Bible that can be found in the drawer beside the bed. Some LDS insiders have been heard to wonder quietly how Romney could come to be traveling without his own copy of the Mormon scriptures — or why he isn’t staying in Marriott hotels, where the Book of Mormon can be found in the nightstand drawer alongside the bible.

This is a perfect example of esoteric public speaking: the attempt to convey multiple messages to different audiences through the careful use of words. Something similar is perhaps contained in Romney’s outspoken admiration for Rick Warren, the megachurch pastor and best-selling author. To the general audience, the message is the embrace of an evangelical who is as mainstream as it gets. To a Mormon audience, however, the praise is presumably intended at most as a suggestion that it is possible to learn from the remarkable organizational and evangelizing effects of a well-known public figure.

Speaking esoterically about faith has a firm basis in LDS tradition — but history suggests it may not be enough for the church to overcome the strand of soft bigotry that it is now facing. And from the church’s perspective, facing up to the reality of such prejudice is not a trivial matter. Precisely because Romney is so accomplished, so telegenic, in short such an impressive candidate, it may be a slap in Mormons’ faces if he finds that he cannot garner the support of conservative values voters. If such voters prefer, say, a pro-choice Roman Catholic of questionable conservative credentials like Rudy Giuliani, the result may look like a public repudiation of Mormonism — from the very party to which Mormons have given their allegiance for the last half-century. (Even if the charge against Romney were that he failed because he was a dissimulating phony, that would hardly be an improvement for the church, given the similarity of that charge with the historical bias against Mormon secrecy.)

If the reality of soft bigotry does not today pose an existential threat to Mormons as explicit oppression once did, it would nevertheless undercut the hard-won public face of Mormonism as a distinctively American religion characterized by worldly accomplishment. For conservatives to reject a Mormon because he is a Mormon would be an especially harsh setback for a faith that has accomplished such extraordinary public success in overcoming a history of painful discrimination.

If Mormonism were to keep Romney from the nomination, the Mormon Church hierarchy may through continuing revelation and guidance respond by shifting its theology and practices even further in the direction of mainstream Christianity and thereby minimizing its outlier status in the culture. Voices within the LDS fold have for some time sought to minimize the authority of some of Joseph Smith’s more creative and surprising theological messages, like the teaching that God and Jesus were once men. You could imagine Mormonism coming to look more like mainline Protestantism with the additional belief not in principle incompatible with Protestant Scripture that some of the lost tribes of Israel ended up in the Americas, where a few had a vision of Christ’s appearance to them. If this hypothetical picture of a future Mormonism seems unimaginable to the contemporary LDS faithful, as it may, today’s Mormon theology would look almost as different to Brigham Young.

Religious development, driven by turns from within and without, is, after all, the mark of a vital faith. Today we do not think of the Catholic pope as the occupant of the pagan Roman office of pontifex maximus, but of course the pontiff is precisely that: the living exemplar of how Christianity met, conquered and was changed by the very empire that presided over the crucifixion. All religions assimilate and change, even as they claim to hew to the old truths.

America changes, too. Today the soft bigotry of cultural discomfort may stand in the way of a candidate whose faith exemplifies values of charity, self-discipline and community that we as Americans claim to hold dear. Surely, though, the day will come when we are ready to put prejudice aside and choose a president without regard to what we think of his religion.

Noah Feldman, a contributing writer for the magazine, is a law professor at Harvard University and adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He writes frequently on religion and public life.

AP Reports Romney Family’s Polygamy, But Not Obama’s

AP Reports Romney Family’s Polygamy, But Not

Obama’s

From a deeply concerned Associated Press:

Romney Family Tree Has Polygamy Branch

 

By JENNIFER DOBNER and GLEN JOHNSON

February 24, 2007

While Mitt Romney condemns polygamy and its prior practice by his Mormon church, the Republican presidential candidate’s great-grandfather had five wives and at least one of his great-great grandfathers had 12.

Polygamy was not just a historical footnote, but a prominent element in the family tree of the former Massachusetts governor now seeking to become the first Mormon president.

Romney’s great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney married his fifth wife in 1897. That was more than six years after Mormon leaders banned polygamy and more than three decades after a federal law barred the practice.

Romney’s great-grandmother, Hannah Hood Hill, was the daughter of polygamists. She wrote vividly in her autobiography about how she “used to walk the floor and shed tears of sorrow” over her own husband’s multiple marriages.

Romney’s great-great grandfather, Parley Pratt, an apostle in the church, had 12 wives. In an 1852 sermon, Parley Pratt’s brother and fellow apostle, OrsonPratt, became the first church official to publicly proclaim and defend polygamy as a direct revelation from God.

Romney’s father, former Michigan Gov. George Romney, was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, where Mormons fled in the 1800s to escape religious persecution and U.S. laws forbidding polygamy. He and his family did not return to the United States until 1912, more than two decades after the church issued “The Manifesto” banning polygamy…

B. Carmon Hardy, a polygamy expert and retired history professor at California State University-Fullerton, said polygamy was “a very important part of Miles Park Romney’s family.”

Hardy added: “Now, very gradually, as you moved farther away from it, it became less a part of it. But during the time of Miles Park Romney, it was an essential principle of the Romney family life.”

Other Mormons have run for the White House, including Romney’s father in 1968 and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, in 2000. But Mitt Romney’s stature as a leading 2008 contender has renewed questions about his faith and its doctrines…

Funny how the media hasn’t mentioned Barack Obama’s father’s polygamist ways. That is, apart from this from the UK tabloid, the Daily Mail:

A drunk and a bigot – what the US Presidental hopeful HASN’T said about his father…

27.01.07

.… At 18, he married a girl called Kezia. But Obama Sr was more interested in politics and economics than his family and his political leanings had been brought to the notice of leaders of the Kenyan Independence movement…

At the age of 23 he headed for university in Hawaii, leaving behind the pregnant Kezia and their baby son.

Relatives say he was already a slick womaniser and, once in Honolulu, he promptly persuaded a fellow student called Ann – a naive 18-year-old white girl – to marry him. Barack Jr was born in August, 1961.

Two years later, Obama Sr was on the move again. He was accepted at Harvard, and left his little boy and wife behind when he moved to the exclusive east coast university…

Mr Obama Jr claims that racism on both sides of the family destroyed the marriage between his mother and father.

In his book, he says that Ann’s mother, who went by the nickname Tut, did not want a black son-in-law, and Obama Sr’s father ‘didn’t want the Obama blood sullied by a white woman’.

In fact Ann divorced her husband after she discovered his bigamous double life

Obama Sr was forced to return to Kenya, where he fathered two more children by Kezia. He was eventually hired as a top civil servant in the fledgling government of Jomo Kenyatta – and married yet again.

Now prosperous with a flashy car and good salary, his third wife was an American-born teacher called Ruth, whom he had met at Harvard while still legally married to both Kezia and Ann, and who followed him to Africa…

And this is Obama’s father, not his great-great grandfather. Who knows what Obama’s Muslim ancestors were up to in Africa a hundred years ago?

But speaking of fathers, how is it none of this was ever mentioned when Mitt’s father George ran for the presidency in 1968?

Was it because he was adamantly against the Vietnam War, and therefore a far preferable choice to Richard Nixon — at least in the eyes of our watchdog media?

And how often was Mo Udall’s Mormonism mentioned when he ran for president? Didn’t his great-great grandparents practice polygamy?

Or for that matter, who has ever brought Harry “Pinky” Reid’s Mormon ancient ancestors during his campaigns?

Funny how even this article had to drag in yet another Mormon Republican, Orin Hatch, rather than mention Mr. Reid — the most powerful elected Democrat in the land.

Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romney’s Family Tree

Mitt Romney’s Many Faces

 

Mitt Romney’s Many Faces

When RedState editor Erick Erickson announced he was “done” the “Multiple Choice Mitt,” it set off a heavy discussion around the blogosphere about Mitt’s viability. I particularly like Ruth Marcus’ take in the Washington Post:

Listening to Romney that day was like watching a chameleon in the fleeting moment that its color changes to suit its environment.

These skeptics are not alone, and the buildup to this opposition has been a long time running. As recently as his 2002 campaign for governor, Romney advocated a strong pro-choice stance. Then came the discovery of this video, highlighting the liberal positions Romney took in his 1994 Senate race.Although abortion is likely the most controversial leftist position Romney has reconsidered, it is by no means the only one. He has changed his position on gays in the military, supporting the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy after opposing it during the 90’s. Romney also supported a federal gas tax hike and opposed Bush’s tax cuts as late as 2003. Perhaps the most egregious sin in the eyes of some conservatives was the revelation that Romney voted for Democrat Paul Tsongas in the 1992 Massachusetts primary and then changed his story on why he did it.

Most of this probably comes as little surprise to pundits familiar with Massachusetts politics. But to most of the country this only reinforces an already skeptical view of the man. As this Gallup poll reveals, not a lot of people have heard of him, but the more they hear, the more his unfavorables rise. The GOP can do better.

Related ITA entries:

“Make Room for Mitt?” by D. Darlington
“Romney’s Pro-Life Rumblings” by S. Zirkle

 

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at February 22, 2007 09:27 AM

Questioning Mitt’s Faith

  https://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2007/02/15/serving-the-mormon-jesus-islam-is-closer-to-christianity-than-mormonism-is/

  

Questioning Mitt’s Faith

By Thomas Lifson

Like it or not, we are going to be hearing more about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Last month I expressed my eagerness to see the media’s treatment of Mitt Romney’s faith. There are bound to be all kinds of treatments, some better than others.

There many issues that will be discussed about Mormon doctrine, assuming Romney remains viable. Religion was a thorny topic even before political correctness. We’ll see all sorts of treatments, motivated by everything from sincere interest and respect to outright hatred.
Mark Finkelstein of Newsbusters catches Stephanopoulos challenging Romney’s own explanation of his beliefs. [emphasis in original]

When I spoke with him, I asked him how Muslims might perceive the Mormon belief that Jesus will return to the United States and reign personally here for a thousand years.”
GMA then rolled a clip of Romney saying the following: “Our belief is just like it says in the Bible, that the Messiah will come to Jerusalem, stand on the Mount of Olives, and the Mount of Olives will be a place where there’s a great gathering, and so forth. It’s the same as the other Christian tradition.”

Stephanopoulos: “Actually, we checked in with a Mormon spokesman who said that’s not exactly true. They believe the New Jerusalem is here in the United States, in Missouri, and that’s where Jesus is going to come.”

Finkelstein sees the new precedent:

ABC has now conferred with a religious spokesman for purposes of challenging a public figure on his religious beliefs. Should we expect to see ABC challenge pro-choice and pro-gay rights Christians and Jews with statements from spokesmen from their respective faiths? Will ABC challenge Muslim guests with statements from Islamic experts? Or does ABC limit its theological challenges exclusively to Mormons?

The answer is probably both a double standard, and more media addressing candidates’ religion.  Barack Obama’s church and pastor have attracted attention, and there was a debunked story that he had attended a radical madrassa in Jakarta.  Religion and politics overlap these days, as they often have in the past. And particularly when lesser-understood faiths are in question, people want to know more. Religion is important.
If Romney does well, and especially if he were to become the nominee, his faith’s doctrines are going to be of compelling interest to many people. The media are not what they used to be, and there is no bottling up of issues as off-limits. The story can’t be done justice in an interview gotcha game.
Stephanopoulos as theologian just does not sell, even though his father was a Greek Orthodox prelate.  His ham-handed I had my staff call somebody retort is not a convincing claim to scriptural mastery. I would guess the story is more complicated. That doesn’t mean the topic is going to be off limits.
Romney has put the subject in play by addressing it in public. And people are interested, for reasons good, bad and ugly. So expect more attention to the Latter Day Saints.

Hat tip: Bryan Demko

Romney Announces Candidacy

Romney Announces Candidacy

Posted in Uncategorized at 8:47 pm by expreacherman

From a Conservative Bible believing Christian point of view, I post these quotes about Mitt Romney’s religious foundation, Mormonism. He admits he was a Mormon Missionary for 30 months and is a member of the Mormon faith. In His announcement speech today, 02/13/07, he proclaimed that we Americans and all the world are brothers and sisters and all are children of God. (Universalism???)  The Bible contradicts Romney by saying, “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:26 Only by faith in Christ Jesus is anyone a child of God. Until one trusts Christ as Savior, he is a creation of God, not a child of God.

Compiled below, from official Mormon documents, are some of the beliefs of the LDS Mormons, (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints). This is by no means an exhaustive list.

1. The Mormon explanation of the Devil

A. The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus “in the morning of pre-existence,” (Mormon Doctrine, page 192.)

B. Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.)

C. A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus’ plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to “deny men their agency and to dethrone god.” (Mormon Doctrine, page 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, page 8.)

2. The Mormon theory of God

  • God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321. Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333.)

A. “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s…” (D&C 13022).

B. God is in the form of a man, (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3.)

C. “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345

D. God the Father had a Father, (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, First Council of the Seventy, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105.)

E. God resides near a star called Kolob, (Pearl of Great Price, pages 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428.)

F. God had sexual relations with Mary to make the body of Jesus, (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, p. 218, 1857; vol. 8, p. 115.) – This one is disputed among many Mormons and not always ‘officially’ taught and believed. Nevertheless, Young, the 2nd prophet of the Mormon church taught it.

G. “Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones.” (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38).

3. God, becoming a god

  • After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 345-347, 354.)

A. “Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them,” (DC 13220).

4. God, many gods

  • There are many gods, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.)

A. “And they (the Gods) said Let there be light and there was light (Book of Abraham 43)

5. God, mother goddess

  • There is a mother god, (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443.)

A. God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children, (Mormon Doctrine p. 516.)

As a Bible believing Christian, I have, in good conscience, published the above.

Likewise, in good conscience, I cannot support, promote, any candidate with such perverted beliefs about my Bible, my Savior and my God.

Find out the truth about God and Salvation by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone..