Sunday, December 9, 2007

Romney Is Untruthful About Mormon Doctrine

Now that you have watched this video... read the new book:
"When Salt Lake City Calls: Is there a conflict between Mormonism and the public trust?"
by Rocky Hulse
Most of those speaking of their concern about a Mormon President in this video are missing the most important issue: allegiance. It's not the bizarre doctrines of Mormonism, it's the allegiance factor. Yes, I have serious doctrinal issues with Mormonism compared to Christianity; however, that isn't the issue. The issue is the oaths and covenants that Mormons have sworn of absolute obedience and allegiance to the Mormon Church and to its living male hierarchy. We are a Republic, not a Democracy. We elect people to go and represent us, "We the People." How can a Mormon represent "We the People," when they are bound by absolute oaths and covenants of servitude to primarily 15 elderly men in Salt Lake City (it also runs to local level leadership as well). If a Mormon in public office was directed by their leadership to vote or act a certain way, and they didn't do it, their refusal could have eternal consequences. Therefore, the name of the book: "When Salt Lake City Calls." The American voter deserves to know what obligations a Mormon has been placed under by their church which conflict with our American democratic ideals and, which could prevent a Mormon politician from freely acting in the best interest of the voter: "We the People."


  1. This video is very much like: "We give you information and we also tell you what you're supposed to think".

    It's not that it was lacking truth entirely, but it fails where the "experts" start speculating or expressing their own opinions. For example, the "teaching" that God had a father, who in turn had a father, and so forth, is well documented in the book "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith". After citing the respective part from the book, Mr. McKeever goes on to portray that particular teaching as official LDS doctrine, which supposedly is still very important in the church today. Let me tell you that in my many years of LDS experience, I have never heard this teaching proclaimed as official doctrine of the church. I can't remember a time, when leaders of the church preached it in General Conference. Correct me if I'm wrong. Members might talk about it sometimes, but I don't think that makes it Church doctrine. I think people outside Mormonism as well as inside oftentimes confuse expression of opinion with solid church doctrine, backed up by the Holy Scriptures. However, it is doctrine that God is an exalted being and we are created in his image, which means that he has a glorified, immortal body. But how he got to be what he is, no one knows for sure I'd say. For all we know, he is God from all eternity to all eternity, and beside him there is no other God, like someone mentioned in the video.

    Also, I was suprised how the Minister from Utah was so taken back by baptism for the dead. After all, there is a refrence in the New Testament concerning baptism for the dead. True, it does not make it very clear that the early church practised baptism for the dead. But even more important, Paul didn't condemn the practise in his epistle. If baptism for the dead was such an unchristian practise, you would think he would have warned his fellow Christians about it. On the contrary, he uses the practise of baptism for the dead, to teach about the doctrine of resurrection.

    Another thing that was kind of interesting was, that the "experts" on the video complained about, how the LDS church seems to be evolving and changing all the time. How can the concept of an evolving church be so foreign to a Christian today? If you study the history of the Bible canon and the history of the Catholic church as well as other churches, there was always a process of evolution involved. It was never clear-cut, this is what it is. There was differences of opinion and there were great councils were those things were debated and discussed.

    Well, I don't want to make this too long. I even don't know if anyone really reads this website, except a few maybe. But if someone has sincere questions about Mormonism, than I ask you with all my heart- make up your own mind. Don't just blindly believe what they present you on websites like this one. Maybe go read the Book of Mormon yourself and judge for yourself if it truely is unchristian or not.

    It seems medieval to me, that others want to tell you what to believe and think.

  2. Jens - You say that the teachings that "God had a father, who in turn had a father" is well documented in the "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith"; but, then you say you don't know if what Joseph Smith taught was "official doctrine?" Your just pulling my leg, right? Joseph Smith, the Prophet of the Restoration, who spoke for God, and whom your church teaches that a Prophet can never lead the church astray, taught these things and you don't know if they're doctrine? Jen, according to your leaders you are on the road to apostacy. Don't let your leaders know you have questioned the teachings of the great Joseph Smith or you could be on the road to serious disciplinary action.

  3. Rocky- Thanks for the warning. I think I'm fine. Mr. Keever in the video said, that this particular "doctrine" is still very much taught in the LDS church today and very important. My question is- when was it taught last in a General Conference meeting, for example, if it is truly so fundamental to the LDS faith?

    Also, I would like to ask again, why Paul didn't condemn baptism for the dead, when he made a refernce to it in 1 Corinthians?

  4. Jen - Where in Mormon scripture does it say that it's not Mormon doctrine if it's not talked about at General Conference? When was the last time the Temple Ceremony was taught at General Conference? I guess then the Temple Endowment is not "fundamental to the LDS faith?" If you are attempting to deny the teaching in Mormonism that God is an exalted man, you are attempting to deny 163 years of Mormonism. Are you in a state of denial; or are you being disengenous? Be careful your audience Jen. This ministry has an extensive library and we don't make statements we can't document. Your comment labels you as a drive-by Mormon. You just drive by these blogs and shout out the window that what we say isn't true, with no evidence, as you drive on by. Are you a drive-by Mormon Jen? Your use of the text in I Cor 15 comes from Mormonism, not history - I'm not even talking Biblical history here, just history in general. There was a cult in Corinth that practiced baptism for the dead. No Christians ever did. Paul wasn't lifting up that practice, he was chastising the Corinthians for their disbelief in the resurrenction. Look at the text of the passage. Paul is talking to the Christians in Corinth, all in 1st person grammar. He then switches to 3rd person grammar (referring to someone other than the Christians) in his chastisement says, paraphrasing, "what is your problem, even "they the cult" believe in the resurrection, if they didn't why are they then baptizing for the dead." Paul goes back to addressing the Christians all in 1st person grammar again. The text doesn't support the Mormon proof-text use of it. Any trained theologian would show the exegesis of that scripture by the Mormon church is in error - improper hermeneutics.

  5. First of all, it's Jens, it's a European name.
    Rocky, The minister in this video made it appear like baptism for the dead is just one of the silliest things ever. In other words, it's easier for him to believe that thousands and thousands of animals found place in a ship, than it is for him to understand, how someone, who believes baptism is an essential ordinance, wants to be baptized in behalf of their deceased ancestors also. I was just pointing out that Paul used the practise of baptism for the dead, to teach about ressurection. I didn't even say he told the saints to do it. I was just thinking out loud-why didn't Paul condemn the practise, if it's such a silly thing (like the minister said)? Seems to me, the Bible would have been a good place to do so.

    Also, thanks, I understand the rules of grammar, I'm fluent in three languages (English not being my native language though).

    Yes, the Endowment is referred to in GC occasionally. The temple and it's ordinances are mentioned there all the time. I don't feel obligated to believe that God the Father had a father, just because Joseph Smith did. In my temple interview I'm not asked if I believe it and I feel like Prophets are entitled to their own opinions, too. I do believe though God is an exalted being/man. He has a body and is a person. He is perfect in every way. He is from eternity to all eternity and He is our creator, which makes us His children. He loves us more than anything else. I have a personal relationship with Him through prayer and I have seen His help in my life so many times, which makes me so very grateful. Not one day goes by without me thinking about Him and talking to Him.

    On a general note: You kinda put yourself out there with this website. So don't be surprised that Mormons read it and leave comments, too. Unless you don't want that, than you have to make that clear. As webmaster you can do whatever you want here. But if you don't and people leave comments, then don't complain. Thanks for calling me a drive-by Mormon, whatever that's supposed to mean. If I hadn't read that Deseret News article way back when, honestly, I would never ever have heard about you. It was mere curiosity to look you up. So now I stop by, very, very rarely though, since I usually have a lot of important things to do. Also, I didn't feel like I was "shouting out" accusations. Sorry if I did. All I wanted to do was sharing my impression about what I saw and maybe ask a question or two. Oh and I encouraged others to make up their own mind-but that should be in your interest, too, right?

  6. Jens, all I ask is intellectual honesty by Mormons that engage in discussions on this blog. I find it to be intellectual dishonest when a Mormon tells me "Well yes, Joseph Smith may have taught that, but that doesn't mean it's Mormon Doctrine." If a Mormon must depend solely on the integrity of Joseph Smith for the "Restoration," which is the foundation for the Mormon belief, I simply find it incredulous that other teachings can be cherry picked at will.

    I don't mind anyone, Mormon or not, coming on the blog. I have been tested when it comes to Mormon doctrine. I have written and filmed with my wife, over 200 TV shows. I've been challenged twice and both times absolutely shown the challenges were bogus in content and evidence. I have written almost 50 newsletters, all fully documented, no challenges; and now a book. I simply want Mormons to be honest about the teachings of their church. I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ; however, it is quite apparent Mormons are ashamed of the gospel of Joseph Smith!

    You are not being honest when you say the Temple Ceremony is taught at General Conference. No it is not. The most you can say is that it is mentioned in simple generalities. The ceremonies are in fact neither taught, nor discussed anywhere outside of the temple itself. So, let's be honest, or why bother to converse unless it is to deceive?

  7. Agreed- the Endowment is mentioned only in simple generalities, but it IS mentioned in GC. "God had a father, who in turn had a father" was not mentioned there in a long time, at least not in my lifetime. That's why I feel it is such a stretch for Mr. McKeever to say, that it is a very prevalent teaching in the LDS church today. I don't know if that is cherry picking, Rocky.

    On a personal note: If my life was over, and it did turn out that God actually eons ago had a father- for me personally that wouldn't take away any of his glory and majesty at all.

    See Rocky, I feel we're battling somewhat on uneven ground. You dedicated your time and energy to disputing Mormonism. I don't have the time to prove all the allegations out there. Some I researched on my own, I found to be fasle. Some, like polygamy, you can't talk away. To me, so far, it seems though that there is always a little twist here or a little omission there, just like in Mr. McKeever's case. That's funny to me, because, that is exactly what they say the LDS church does.

    By the way, speaking about your newsletter. I had a glance over it one time, like half a year or a year ago. It happened to be an article where someone compares mormonsim to a disease, that you have to protect yourself from with vitamins and such. To me that is awful polemic, not even talking about further implications that you could draw from such an analogy, whether those implications were intended or not.

  8. Jens,

    Here's the bottom line: You are placing your eternity on one figure in history: Joseph Smith. Without Joseph, you have nothing. Is he, Joseph, deserving of your complete trust? You said you haven't had the opportunity to "prove all the allegations out there." I can appreciate that; however, take the time to prove whether the person that Mormonism revolves around, Joseph Smith, is worthy of the faith placed upon him. "The Brethren" have built him up to legendary proportions to support the claim that he was the "Prophet of the Restoration." Is the legend true? Evidence shows the legend and the person don't match. In Christianity, eternity is built upon Jesus - the legend and the person match here. Jens, where do you place your eternity, on Jesus, or Joseph?


Rocky and Helen Hulse

Rocky and Helen Hulse
Defending Christianity From Mormon Doctrine