E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
George Frey / Getty Images file
Mormons walk past the historic Mormon Salt Lake Temple as they attend the 182nd Annual General Conference of the Mormon Church on March 31 in Salt Lake City, Utah.
SAN FRANCISCO -- If the Mormon church were a business, wealthy adherents like Mitt Romney would count as its dominant revenue stream.
Its investment strategy would be viewed as risk-averse.
It would also likely attract corporate gadflies protesting a lack of transparency. They would call for less spending on real estate and more on charitable causes to improve membership growth -- the Mormons' return on investment.
Those are a few of the conclusions that can be drawn from an analysis of the church's finances by Reuters and University of Tampa sociologist Ryan Cragun.
Relying heavily on church records in countries that require far more disclosure than the United States, Cragun and Reuters estimate that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints brings in some $7 billion annually in tithes and other donations.
It owns about $35 billion worth of temples and meeting houses around the world, and controls farms, ranches, shopping malls and other commercial ventures worth many billions more.
The church claims 14 million members around the world, more than half outside the United States. All are supposed to tithe, or give 10 percent, of their income, which Mormons frequently interpret as pre-tax earnings. But only about 40 percent of Mormons counted by the church actually attend weekly services in the United States and Canada, and in many countries, including Mexico and Brazil, only a quarter of nominal members are active, according to Cumorah, an independent research group headed by a devoted, active Mormon.
These active members are most likely to tithe, and the result is that from a financial standpoint at least, the church remains largely a venture of active American members, said Cragun, who adds that U.S. Mormon men tend to be wealthier than the average U.S. male.
"Most of the revenue of the religion is from the U.S., and a large percentage comes from an elite cadre of wealthy donors, like Mitt Romney," said Cragun. "(It) is a religion that appeals to economically successful men by rewarding their financial acuity with respect and positions of prestige within the religion."
The church is full of successful businessmen, including chemical billionaire Jon Huntsman Sr., the father of the former presidential candidate, J.W. "Bill" Marriott Jr. and his hotel-owning family, and even entertainer Donny Osmond.
Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, gave $4.1 million to the church over the past two years (amounting to 9.7 percent of his gross adjusted income, according to the two years' worth of tax returns he has released). He would tithe on his IRA, valued at as much as $102 million, only when he withdraws from it and pays taxes.
Crunching the numbers
Several countries around the world require religious groups and charities to file financial reports, including Canada. The country has only 185,000 Mormon members but a wealth of statistics on them. Taking total reported Canadian donations and dividing by the estimated number of active Mormons and family financial data from the World Bank indicates that active Canadian Mormons give slightly less than 8 percent of their income to the church.
Assuming that active U.S. Mormons give at a similar rate and adjusting for higher U.S. income, total U.S. tithing would amount to more than $6 billion, or about $6.5 billion annually between the United States and Canada.
Australia, Hong Kong, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, which also require financial disclosures, all have sharply lower donation rates than Canada. Based on data from those countries, tithing outside the United States and Canada totals several hundred million dollars, taking global total donations to about $7 billion.
Canada also requires the church to disclose the value of its assets and spending. Using those figures as a basis suggests the total value of church buildings, including temples and meeting houses, would be about $35 billion globally.
Church spokesman Michael Purdy declined to comment specifically on the estimates but said that the church was different from a corporation.
"Other projections are speculative and do not reflect an understanding of how the church uses its income to bless the lives of people," he added, saying the church was financed primarily from member tithing and offerings.
Focus on business and buildings
Concerned or disgruntled current and former Mormons complain that the church spends too much on real estate and for-profit ventures, neglecting charity work.
The Mormon church has no hospitals and only a handful of primary schools. Its university system is limited to widely respected Brigham Young, which has campuses in Utah, Idaho and Hawaii, and LDS Business College. Seminaries and institutes for high school students and single adults offer religious studies for hundreds of thousands.
It counts more than 55,000 in its missionary forces, primarily youths focused on converting new members but also seniors who volunteer for its nonprofits, such as the Polynesian Cultural Center, which bills itself as Hawaii's No. 1 tourist attraction, and for-profit businesses owned by the church.
The church has plowed resources into a multi-billion-dollar global network of for-profit enterprises: it is the largest rancher in the United States, a church official told Nebraska's Lincoln Journal Star in 2004, with other ranches and farms in Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Australia and Great Britain, according to financial documents reviewed by Reuters.
Ranching and farm industry sources say they are well-run operations.
It also has a small media empire, an investment fund, and is developing a mall across from its Salt Lake City headquarters, which it calls an attempt to help revitalize the city rather than to make money. These enterprises are also part of a vast nest egg for tough times. The church expects wars and natural disasters before Christ returns to Earth in the Second Coming, and members are encouraged to prepare by laying in stores of food. Farms and ranches are part of the church's own preparation.
"The church teaches its members to live within their means and put a little money aside for life's unexpected events. As a church, we live by the same principle," Purdy said. The rainy-day fund and operating budget rarely mix, officials say.
Cost-cutting is a top priority, church documents show. It has even laid off janitors and called on members to clean temples and meeting houses, but the buildout of temples continues, including one under construction in Rome.
Those temples take a lot of money to operate, Purdy points out, and many of the grand church buildings are short on congregants, says David Stewart, a physician who leads the research group Cumorah.
"I have been to beautiful church buildings in Hungary and Ukraine, and Latvia and other places, and there are these huge buildings and 35 people there, and you say, how can this work financially? The math - it just doesn't work."
In contrast, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which had about 17 million members a year ago, appears to be getting a better return on investment: It builds smaller meeting houses and lots of schools and hospitals, and its numbers are swelling faster than the Mormons', said Stewart. The Adventists claim a million new members join annually, compared with every three years or so for the Mormons.
"The Seventh-day Adventists clearly have a much more expansive humanitarian project in terms of building hospitals and medical schools and schools and universities and long-term developmental infrastructure around the world," said Stewart. "It's paid off for them."
The Mormon church, meanwhile, appears to be decreasing transparency and member control of donations. New tithing slips give fewer donation options and come with an expanded disclaimer saying the church has sole discretion over spending, even though it will make "reasonable efforts" to follow donors' wishes.
"Hey, where's the slot of 'shopping malls'?" a poster said of the new slips on exmormonforums.com, one of several dissident sites.
Many faithful have no such issues. On chat boards and in private conversations, they emphasize that volunteering for the church and giving to it are worthy deeds in and of themselves.
"The funds are used to build and maintain temples and meeting houses, as well as take care of the many expenses associated with helping the work of the Gospel of Jesus Christ roll forth. I love to pay tithing," Carl Ames said on one church site.
Purdy did offer a list of spending priorities: building houses of worship, supporting Brigham Young University and a seminary system, operating nearly 140 temples and the world's largest genealogy research program, and humanitarian aid for both members and non-members.
Since 1985 the church has spent a total of $1.4 billion on relief for disasters such as Japan's earthquake and Ethiopian famine, and it operates 129 "bishops' storehouses" with food and household items for the needy.
Romney himself focuses on the act of giving, not the result. As he told Fox News Sunday, "Hopefully, as people look at various individuals running for president, they'd be pleased with someone who made a promise to God and kept that promise."
Leave a Comment:
This sort of article is going to continue popping up until Nov 6th as everyone gets reminded over and over that Mormons are not Christians and are "different."
Well... according to Christians they aren't Christians. Mormonism is a cult, don'tcha know?
I understand the distinction between what Mormons believe and what other Christian religions believe. What I don't understand is why that makes practitioners of other Christian religions feel like they can sneer down their noses at Mormons and call them non-Christian, or how they can justify said sneering in the first place and still claim to be "Christian" themselves.
Mormons and Christians are different. However they should both be taxed the same! I'm sick of these business hiding behind the veil of a "church" and not having to account for anything to the public. Churches need to disclose their revenue and be taxed appropriately. The American people should be voting on THIS issue!!
Exactly what I was thinking. If Mitt Romney were not running for president, no one would care less. Just another example of the "Chicago" style dirty crap that Romney is up against. He is keeping honor in the race while Obama and his croonies play dirty. Guess that sorta shows the difference between Democrats and Republicans.
What planet does their god live on again?
They are taxed the same. What are you talking about?
Christians (and mormons) pay the exact same tax as you do.
For profit businesses (like ranches and shopping malls) that churches (mormon or otherwise) operate still pay taxes.
SRSCOTT, you make me laugh. As if the Reps haven't talked about the preacher in Obama's christian church AND that Obama is somehow a muslim constantly.
If we really want to fix the deficet in this country...we need to stop letting ALL the religions off the hook and taxing them (along with the corrupt corporations) and we would have all the money we need to support these 'endless' wars our congress and stipid ex-presidents get us into !!
Tubal22: Those business may pay taxes while they are in operation, but when the church sells off that business and brings in a profit its tax free!!! Why do you think they go into those businesses in the first place?? Why do you think they have real estate holdings?? It's because they make giant tax free gains. They only pay legitimate taxes while those business are in operation - not when they cash out. When you and i make money on a home we pay something called Capital Gains - they do not!
@srscott
You have got to be kidding !
I did not know it was honorable to hid your money in offshore accounts and to deceive people about your taxes. One hundred million in an IRA and the list of dishonorable issues goes on and on.
Taxing more won't fix anything, government will simply spend it all and continue far into the red like it's doing now. The partisan finger pointers need to quit placing all the blame on the other side and hold both establishment parties responsible for this mess we're in. Both sides need to agree to some serious austerity measures i.e. ending our interventionalist foreign policy and cutting back on domestic porkulus spending.
Cults by dictionary definition, withhold information about the cults practices to gain new converts, and restrict access to new converts to retain membership. The Mormons do exactly this.
The Mormons will question you about legal sexual practices for a temple recommend, but not tell new converts that Smith misused his non-existent ecclesiastical authority to manipulate minors into marriage in violation of the law.
The Mormons teach that only shedding innocent blood after baptism will cost someone their salvation, yet I've personally seen people I know lose their lives and salvation for other serious transgressions other than shedding innocent blood. I've seen people involved in serious transgressions murder entire families when they engage in behaviors that before baptism wouldn't have resulted in these murders.
@srscott,
Honor as in requiring 10 years of Ryan's tax returns but only revealing ONE year of his own. (He says that he will reveal his 2011 return when it is "ready" --- sometime in 2013)? Just asking ......
Honor as in trying to bring a lawsuit to keep the media from asking any questions about his underwear? (The case was thrown out as "a textbook example of prior restraint.")
And how much does NBC bring in?
This is NONE of your business.... NBC is GUILTY of RELIGION-BAITING
You've seen murders and didn't report them? Your comment is really confusing me ... or, are you just speaking broadly?
On the "cult" front, I really find it hilarious that Christians (of any stripe) don't think they are in a cult.
Really?
Actually, it's much worse. You're not only in a cult, but you are in one that is centralized around the idea of human sacrifice. I don't know which is more disturbing ... the fact you guys really believe this is a good thing, or the fact that in the 21st century, you still believe in fairytales at all. Did I say disturbing? I actually meant sad.
To state the wealth of the Mormon Church is meaningless unless it is compared to the wealth of the Catholic Church, Methodist, Babtist and other Churches.
Oh, well then fear not, mike32658799, because Romney/Ryan want to abolish the capital gains tax altogether. That oughta level the playing field for everyone, right? (Mmmm... I love the smell of fresh sarcasm...)
This is money well donated! We are Christians! We support one another and the small amount we donate to our Christian church is small compared to the blessing we receive.
Actually, I think the point is that all churches rake in Billions and Billions of dollars each year (a fraction of which actually goes to humanitarian aid), and almost all of which is tax exempt.
I mean, is it really that hard to understand the outrage? Aren't you guys supposed to be the "fiscally" responsible ones?
Doesn't it give you just the slightest bit of pause when you shell out your money to these crooks?
It's quite humorous to hear the Right exclaim how much they hate the government ... oh, until it comes to religion-based tax exemption ... then they have no problem putting their sweaty hands out to grab those breaks and maneuver those loopholes. Come to think of it, who's that remind you of? Big corporations maybe?
Define irony for me.
The party of Jesus has become the very thing he couldn't stand.
Call me a "godless heathen" all you what. My god, at least I haven't lost my humanity. What the hell happened to you guys?
deweydan
put it all together and we can get rid of the decifict....
GoldfishTheDestroyer, can you give us an example of what you're talking about? I'm having a hard time understanding your post (or at least that last paragraph, anyway). Thanks!
SRScott stated: "Exactly what I was thinking. If Mitt Romney were not running for president, no one would care less. Just another example of the "Chicago" style dirty crap that Romney is up against. He is keeping honor in the race while Obama and his croonies play dirty."
Same game, just a different Presidential race.
"Guess that sorta shows the difference between Democrats and Republicans."
Not really. When you flip that coin over, the same face keeps showing itself.
lol...deficit....
When churches start venturing into regular for profit enterprises that have nothing to do with religion, those enterprises should be taxed just like any other business. If a church is going to own a shopping mall, a cattle ranch, or any other secular business and run it as a for profit business then it should be taxed as one. The church should not be given the unfair competitive advantage of being able to operate these businesses without paying taxes in direct competition with others operating the same type of business as a regular secular company.
Beyond that, I see this article as nothing more than a poorly veiled attempt at a hatchet job on the Mormon church as a way to take a shot at Romney in support of the media's favorite son Obama. If they wanted to be fair they should publish the same type of information on the Catholic church and every other religion. Most people would be appalled at the wealth of he Catholic church and what they spend money on. Officials of the Catholic church live lavish lifestyles while members of the faith are starving to death. If the Catholic church were a private corporation it would be in the top of the Fortune 500!!!
Hey everybody, let's all join the statist and athiest bandwagon!! Churches are for loosers and they horde money that the government should have! They call them tithing and donations, we call it misspent, elitist, hate money! They want "morality" which we all know is a code word for descrimination!!
I guess I never figured that the US would go so anti-religion that they are happy to tear them down and delegitimize them. I guess I was wrong. For those doubters please remember that charity begins at home and religion has a long history of providing long prior to organized, government social services. The term "my brother's keeper" is intended to mean I'll help you out when you need it. If you promote your cause enough and get the government to remove the tax free status of religion just watch what happens- maybe there won't be quite so many ways to get help anymore. That might just further empower the government to control more of our lives again- no soup kitchen via the church, well I guess you'll depend on me now.
Say, did you hear that NYC (and other municipalities) are starting to cut off church donations and resturant donations to soup kitchens? Why? Well, the government can't control what's in the food- maybe there'll be some salt or fat, maybe you won't have a health department license to cook those meals. Ooooooo. I'd say, "hey maybe there'd be less food waste in the dump and just maybe it'll make someone happy to eat today." Well, that's my logic but I guess government knows far better ways to use my money than I do.
(I have to admit that I do believe people are good and goodness/kindness will prevail even if the government forces churches to change. They can take the church out of daily life but you can't take religion out of people. People have to choose that for themselves.)
LOL!!! OH!!! MY SIDES!!!
Seriously, you AREN'T serious, are you? If you are, you are either completely ignorant, or a paid shill.
I guess I'm cynical, but after watching millenia of humans taking advantage of, and killing other humans, I'm no longer as taken with the spirit of humanity as I was when I was younger, and hadn't the awareness of human history.
People are usually NOT good on their own, we are a selfish and fickle bunch. Church CAN help this, but too many churches are shams themselves, and are totally insufficient for the amount of charity this country needs. If churches were enough, we wouldn't have any homeless, but we do, LOTS, and government is the only tool that can effect change there.
I guess it really is true... Reality has a liberal-bias...
I agree with your entire first paragraph. But please tell me where it says anywhere in the constitution that purely religious institutions should be tax-exempt?
Come on ... really? Do you know the history behind the Mormon Church?
Joseph Smith was a convicted con-man who invented a religion because he enjoyed the company of more than one woman. If anything is a hatchet job regarding the Mormon church ... well, it's Mormonism.
How is it that this article failed to mention Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, another prominent Mormon? Is being a Mormon evil only if you are a Republican?
christian and mormon beliefs are both equally unbelievable. christians: virgin birth? monotheistic triune god? ressurection of a dead human after 3 days?
mormons: 2 lost tribes of isreal in north america. some native americans are their decendants. the book of mormon translated using a stone in the bottom of a hat.
it's just that the mormon beliefs are not buried in the mists of history, and can likely be debunked by dna tests on native americans/Israelis. christian beliefs have been repeated longer and seem to have more legitimacy as their origins are more ancient.
not a good reason for christians to look down on mormons: that their unbelievable stuff has been around longer and just feels more legit.
JoeNY
Come on man. You're smarter than that, I can tell from your writing. Nothing you just mentioned at #1.25 carries any bearing in reality.
They were ALREADY reported in the news, and I read the articles to find out what behavior resulted in the demonic madness and murders. For instance I saw a woman murder an entire family in the news and read the article to find that she was a homewrecking adulteress. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Josh Powell, a former Mormon, took an axe to his children and then set his children, house, and self on fire. They had found evidence of simulated parent-child child porn on his computer.
I know that adultery can lead to murder. And I strongly suspect that quite a few murder suicides in the past few years have been related to illegal files like Josh Powell had.
I suspect that both behaviors can deprive people of their salvation after baptism.
$7B ?
Not bad for a church that believes in a Space Alien.
.
No where in this article does it say anything about how the Govt takes Trillions of dollars from its citizens in taxes(tithes)
7 billion vs a couple trillion. Who is really the greedy one here?
LOL at Harry Reid being a Mormon. Thats aweosme
Great racket. Make up a 'Religion', get tax exempt status, convince members they must pay 10% of their income as a tithe(tax), and let the billions roll in.
Chicago skeptic said:
Please read the first quote for your answer. Harry Reid, to my knowledge, has never used his religion, or his God, to blatantly use people's faith to garner votes.
He has, on the other hand, perhaps considered Mormon tenants when talking repeatedly of his fellow Mormon's need to produce 10 years of tax returns.
Uhhh ... yeah ... it pretty much happens to be the number one cause of domestic violence ... no religion necessary. I'm pretty sure "religious" adulterers don't have a higher propensity for murder than the non-religious ones.
Adultery sucks (across the board). I'd be absolutely crushed to find that my wife cheated on me. But, she doesn't need god to tell her not to ... and I certainly don't need god's commandment to refrain from the act. Civil human beings operate and sustain relationships through love and trust. God is not a prerequisite of either.
All you need to know about the Mormon Church is found:
In Fawn Brodie's "No Man , Knows My Name "
A bio of Joseph Smith who was anything but an honest man. Take note particularly of his use of ancient Egyptian Papyri, which Smith misrepresented as Mormon artifacts. And his rewrite of the pages of The Book of Mormons destroyed by Martin Harris's wife because she wanted him to have no part in Smith's deception. Smith then came back to Harris with and created different translation which now makes up the beginning of that book. Incidentally these transations were done with seer stones. Nothing a Christian should sanctify. Of course this was all ordained by God according to Smith.
By researching Mark Hofmann's infamous "Salamander Letter" and the killing that followed. And the very real fears of the Church at the very highest levels that his forgeries were real documents. They clearly don't believe their own history. The reason the key document was of such interest is that it showed a mere salamander as the figure who directed Smith to the Golden Plates (and not the Angel Moroni) which he translated into Mormon dogma. Hofmann was extorting from the church and was only found out when one of his bombs went off in his car, crippling him. In his trunk were found scraps pf papyri that he was going to sell as well in the guise of Mormon artifacts Mormon. He is now serving a life sentence in the same prison as the Unabomber. All of his 'documents" were proven frauds.
The FACT that Smith had multiple witnesses sign testimony that they had seen these Golden Plates when all they had really seen was a burlap sack and then felt the weight of the contents of that bag. Smith telling them bad consequences would come if they actually viewed the plates.
By researching "The Kinderhook Plates" - a series of forged brass plates which had no meaning and were intentionally given to Smith who was "translating" them at the time of his death. It was a test by three Illinois men who had no faith in Smith.
Smith's failed bank in Kirtland, Ohio which cost many original members their wealth. Also of course "ordained" by God.
Smith was jailed and killed in jail in Carthage, Illinois (actually in the courtyard after escaping initially) because he had ordered the destruction of a printing press of one of his critics. Hardly the work a proper American.
The fact that Mormonism could be debunked by an examination of the Hill Cumorah in Upstate NY. If they are not an astounding number of skeletons beneath that hill then it is of little meaning as a great battle was to have taken place there. With modern technology this would not require destruction of that site. But Mormons own that land and will allow no such thing. Of course this is also near the spot where Smith "found" his original plates.
And there is so much more.
The end question is whether something good can come from a fraud? Admittedly Mormons are very supportive of each other and their communities. They come across as eerily sincere people. But again, "Can something good come from a fraud?" And why would any "God" ever ordain such a thing?
"This is money well donated!"
Lori, do you understand what tithing is all about? It's not about giving money, it's about giving up(10% of) a part of oneself to find the Christ.
"We are Christians!"
Not really, you only call yourselves that. To be a real Christian, that means following every step of the Christs teachings, not just a couple of them, or a few of them, but ALL of them.
"We support one another"
As it normally should be.
"and the small amount we donate to our Christian church is small"
And how much do you tithe to the church within you?
"compared to the blessing we receive."
Do you really think that Christ equates money to blessings? I don't recall anything about giving money to receive blessings in any of the teachings. Please, enlighten all of us with that part.
Chad, I would ask whether you know the full history behind the Mormon Church? With your comment, it doesn't appear that you do. From your comment, it looks like you either distort the facts or just plain don't care to get all the facts. There are two sides to every story.
Oh my goodness;
Mormon Church Rich.
Romney Rich.
Romney's a Mormon.
Most Americans NOT Rich.
Gee, I wonder if there's a not so hidden 'political message' here from Obama's personal political outlet - NBC 'News'? I'm sure Obama's buddy at GE, Jeff Immelt pulls it's strings. Now let's see how many comments we can get from those who hate Mormons.
Kurt,
The history I speak of is not something you really need to focus efforts in to "uncover." In other words, it isn't really that hard. Unlike Christ and other religious figures, Mormonism is pretty new. And as such, we not only know a great deal about Joseph Smith, but what we do know, is actually part of the public record.
I'm sorry if this offends you or is inconvenient to your faith, but I can't simply swipe reality away. It's much too important a concept in my life.
Tony
The reason they are considered "not Christian" is because all revelations were stated to be over by the Apostle John in the Book of Revelations about 100 AD.
Mormonism is about an angel giving a "new Revelation" of scripture to Joseph Smith. I haven't had a Mormon explain to me how this gets around what the Apostle John wrote in saying there would be no more revelations and nothing should be added or subtracted from what he outlined as the 66 books that make up the Bible. Note: Catholics also include the Apocripha books as a suppliment, but not scripture and is not a new revelation of what scripture means.
Ok,
This is someone who doesn't think Mormonism is correct, nor supports Romney.
This article is a crap hack job trying to smear and entire religion and set of religious beliefs. Screw this author.
I'm sure the Mormon church is like any other religion. Those who have money give. Those who give are granted a certain amount of deference.
Many religious organizations have problems with some of the stances that the Democratic party has taken over the last century. Whether it is the belief that we, as a nation, have an obligation to care for the least fortunate, that the most fortunate have an obligation to to pay for the benefits the nation has given to them, that ALL races are equal, that men and women are equal, that women have the right to control their bodies and many others the conservatives have always been unwilling to yield to reality.
For these reasons, if a religious organization issues any sort of public opinion, it is usually in favor of the Republican or conservative position.
Now we have the Republican Party which has as its stated aim the destruction of the entire fabric of modern society. They "want to shrink the size of government down to the point where it can be drowned in a bath tub." All this is being done when there is an even greater need for the services government provides, whether it is the prevention of pollution by the EPA, the FDA control of bad food from being imported or the USDA preventing people from starving.
While it is unlikely the destruction of government will lead people back to religion, maybe that is also their aim.
I personally have a problem supporting any politician that believes in invisible sky kings and 2000 year old "messiahs" that talks to him in his head...
Why on earth would anyone follow someone who is insane?
Why would a church hold so much commercial property in it's "portfolio?" Is a shopping center "God's work?" Give us a break and start taxing the churches.
As for Romney--this guy is a carnival barker along with his new pony, Paul Ryan.
Obama-Biden 2012
I think the telling point of this article is this statement:
Why don't they have a hospital?
Also for those active members, they are REQUIRED to pony up the full 10% at the end of the year and are held accountable by their "Bishops." If they do not, they lose their temple recommends (which are needed in order to get into their temples to perform their sealings to each other and baptisms of the dead). If the full 10% is not paid, they also run the risk of losing whatever position they currently hold in the ward/stake/whatever.
I think this article and the previous ones from BusinessWeek are VERY important. I think someone's religions views certainly do affect their outlook on life. The Mormon religion is VERY patriarchial and the women know it. They are very well aware that they can only get to their "celestial kingdom" if their "sealed" mate calls them by their special temple-given name when he arrives at their whatever colored gates.
So what is the harm in actually being a wise steward of the tithes and offerings received?
If you have a problem with the Mormon church increasing the value of the tithes and offerings it receives, why don't you read the Parable of the Talents!
This article and all of these comments show how ignorant the general population is about Mormons and how their church operates.
As far as the religious operations of the church, including those "positions of prestige" as the article claims, all of the positions are filled by members of the church who receive $0 pay on a voluntary basis. I know of wealthy millionaires who serve in positions such as teaching the 1.5 to 3 year old children on Sunday. And they do it gladly without any expectation of financial reward. No one in an ecclesiastical position makes a dime for their service. And that goes all the way to the top.
I know people who serve in these "prestigious positions". They don't get paid. Yet they put in as much time in service as if it were a second part time or full time job! I know people who are employed by the Mormon church as well. They get paid a VERY modest salary compared to the private and public sector. No one in the church is personally profiting by the church's investment activities so what is the harm?
By the way, the church also pays CASH for EVERYTHING. They don't buy something unless they can pay for it. That is why in the construction world, contractors practically beg to do work for the Mormon church because they know they will get PAID. If we only had a government and society as a whole for that matter, that was as prudent and wise in the handling of money as the Mormon church, we would all be better off.
Don't you think it's about time to start taxing these mudderfudders?
George Carlin - Religion is bullshyt.
50 reasons why religion is B.S.
"The difference between a cult and a religion is the amount of real estate they own"
Frank Zappa
So many of you ,well crack me up. Your religion is the one, it is ok for your religion to hold tons of assets, it's ok for your religion to hold certain beliefs.
GoldfishTheDestroyer
Because you happened to see two different articles where two crazy people killed family members, who happened to have a mormon background, that automatically means people who leave the church and "sin" become murderers?? Please, do explain more. I can't really understand what you mean through all that ignorance. I think you need to realize that there are just a bunch of unstable people in this world and that it has nothing to do with "sin" and the church. If I have to be honest, it's people like you and the words that come out of your mouth that helped encourage my decision to leave the church. But please, tell me more about how you know for a FACT that, oh i dunno... masturbation leads to murder. Cause that's a sin, right?? And no sin is greater than another.... right????
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." --- Marcus Aurelius
To which I would add: Make sure you worship a God you would not mind spending eternity with.
@DB Akron
I no longer consider myself Mormon, but I'll take your challenge.
I assume you are referring to Revelations 22:18 "For I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
You do seem to be vaguely aware that the word "bible" means "collection of books." This particular scripture refers ONLY to the Book of Revelations, not the bible as a whole. After all, the bible as we know it was put together by the Catholic church hundreds of years after the Book of Revelations was written. The Book of Revelations is a unique book and it is forbid to add to it.
You can add scripture referring to revelations all you want, just not of the kind found in the Book of Revelations.
We will all be "Tithing" to the Mormons after Romney gets in, get used to it! I hear he has a hit list of Evangelicals, it almost makes it worth it to see him stick it to the people who slammed him in the Primaries!!
@rules. You are a total ass.
Rules, you are so mis/informed... Romney has paid taxes, he just won't lay down in the slime with barry.
He has done more than barry to show his history and all of you that think you know who is in the White House will one day be very surprised..
I am a Christian and I accept the Mormon Church.. I have never sneered down my nose at any of them. You all just want to muddy the waters before they even run...
Have you ever looked into barry's religion.. Some nice people there.
Roy Wilson
You hit the nail on the head. When you're anti-Obama on this forum (NBC), you won't get many "likes", as you well know. This article was only to "bash" Gov Romney.
Way to go NBC and MSNBC staff. This story shows you for the true dirtbags you are.
It's just more proof positive that the left has long ago become what they say they abhor.
simple is enough ...
I think the "wise" stewardship comes into question as the LDS Church is into making money. PERIOD. They give back only 7% of what they take in to humanitarian efforts and because they are a "church," all of the monies they receive are tax-free. Don't believe my numbers, please read the article below.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-10/how-the-mormons-make-money#p5
Seeing as Governor Romney is running and has been heavily involved with his "church," it makes you wonder what he plans to do when over-writing the tax code. Is this truly acceptable? That a "church" that takes in so much from so many does so little for the world while claiming that they do???
How much the religious bigots Obama supporters donate on relief for disasters, instead criticise you should look at yourself. How much of the donation from Romney went to humanitarian help. Liber-tarded and hypocrites.
it all comes down to a couple simple things.... how you treated your fellow man, and the good in your heart. if there is a god based on the good of man, he will not matter his belief. if he believed in christ, bowed to the east, or didnt believe in god, but deep down, some one that tried to be a good person, and do whats right, without an agenda means only to favor themselves, hidden or not.
Sad that all this tithing doesn't make it to the people with the exception of the pedophilia lawsuits to pay their victims.
Help your neighbors, friends and people in needs.
Fuk these organized religions where they keep the profits (tax free) and live in mansions.
When are they going to start helping the people as their God did? My guess, NEVER!
There is only one God, no matter what religions say. Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, and Muslims all worship the same God whether or not they know it or will admit it. It is for God to judge, and not men.
Layton
I guess you speak for Sen. Reid who is a Mormon too. If not , what has to do his church with his plan about tax-code. You are just another kool-aid drinker, parroting with no idea what are you talking.
This part of the article says it best.
Focus on business and buildings
That's why they aren't to be trusted, period.
FlatIron...
Quite right. I have yet to meet a politician who doesn't look at a pile of money without wanting to spend it on something inane or to pay for a pet project, especially when it comes to vote pandering.
Mike:
Why should churches be taxed? The money donated to churches have already been taxed. It's not like they are a for profit company who makes plastic widgets to sell. People who donate to churches want their souls fed. Should that be taxed????
oskar#######
Harry Reid does NOT have a platform of overhauling the tax code. I am well aware of the LDS Church as I live in Utah and have had it all force-fed down my throat since the day I said, "No, I'm not LDS." I've studied that religion and know an awful lot more about it then you EVER will. Don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about and what I parrot, little man. I could run circles around you over this subject. There are some very good LDS people. My PROBLEM is having someone that is so INDOCTRINATED in this religion running for President and then taking on the tax code. Got it????
I wondered why this article didn't mention the $48 million the Mormon Church spent defeating Prop. 8, in California, while ignoring the massive welfare fraud practiced by the 30,000+ fundamentalist polygamist Mormons in Utah and Arizona. They even have a name for it! They call it "Bleeding the beast". The Mormon church has been strangely silent about convicted pedophile prophet. Warran Jeffs', and his 12 year old "brides". This is debauchery masquerading as religion!
This article is disgusting. A pitiful attempt to further play into the smear campaign against Romney. I have little to do with Mormonism, but I have to admit, the ones I do know are really decent people.
If one's Church is so important to understanding the candidate, why doesn't NBC do an evaluation piece of Barack Obama's Church. You know - the bigoted, racist, fanatical, anti-Semitic 'religious' institution that Obama attended and was heavily involved with for decades.
Democrats on this board - let's hear you talk about the Trinity United Church of Christ. If you are unwilling to bring to (which I'm sure you'd rather not), then keep your mouths closes about Romney's Church.
NBC - you should be ashamed of yourself.
All religion is a cult. How many religions? Are they all correct? Is only one? Do you believe in the only right religion? Do you really have that kind of arrogance? Just because your family believes doesn't make it true. People believed the world was flat and the earth was the center of the universe, that has been proven wrong.
Tea party Low IQ tell me then how long did Obama serve??? Comparing apples and oranges does nothing but confirm your screen name.
Morons have a strange belief.They believe in different level to work your way to becoming a god when the Die..The also believe Jesus and Satan are brothers...They are closes to the Muslim religion and not the Jewish faith as they claim..They believe that the more wealth you get on earth the higher your level..That's why they say Romney is high level in his religion..It was founded in 1820's.....The average person of the street isn't allowed in their temple.. I had a friend who's sister was Mormon..Could get her to realize that wasn't a Real Christian believe....They believe the Bible that they also use was probably altered by the Greeks so the have the book of Mormon Which really goes totally different from the Bible..Look it up..
I feel sorry for all those who believe in religion. I grew out of Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. When will you grow up.
Actually... if you don't understand why mainstream Christians do not consider the LDS Church to be just another Christian denomination... well, then... you do NOT "understand the distinction" between what the LDS Church believes and what mainstream Christians believe.
Likewise, if you truly did understand the differences and distinctions, you would not consider the mainstream Christians to be "sneering down their noses" at the LDS Church.
Consider this... Most mainstream Christians willingly accept any number of denominations as being "Christian" - Baptist, Methodist, etc... Even between Protestants and Catholics there is --more often than not-- an understanding that the other side is a "Christian" faith. However, neither Protestants or Catholics accept the LDS Church as just another denomination, or another type of Christianity.
What makes the LDS Church's doctrine *SO* different that BOTH sides oppose it's inclusion with such vehemence?
If you truly did understand the differences, you would already know the answer to that. And, you wouldn't see the opposition to including the LDS Church as a "Christian faith" as Christians "sneering down their noses", but as Christians being genuinely concerned and/or offended by certain aspects of LDS doctrine.
Hint: It has to do with the LDS profile of the origin and nature of God and Jesus not lining up with the Biblical profile of the origin and nature of God and Jesus... and the fact that mainstream Christians do not accept any other "testament of Jesus Christ" than the one set forth in their most sacred text: the Bible!
The only thing I can say to that is... Amen! LOL
Well, that and 'Thank You', since I take it you won't be voting for Romney... which is a service to us all.
expatdownunda
Do keep telling yourself that, but we all know that when you become sick, you run to the doctor for the cure.
Time to start taxing the Mormon church - it's more like a business with each passing year.
End the tax exempt status of churches. All churches. It's time.
This is obscene.
Someones religion doesn't concern me but I think just about anyone has perceptions about different religions. When I think about Mormons I find their ideas a bit flaky but if I think of Catholics I think about child molesting priests. However I judge individuals by their actions not how I view their religion. Islam is the only religion I believe you have to have an inner hate to belong to.
IF they are like my elders out of 56 of them. 26 will be in Afghanistan (as they are right now)13 will just have returned (as they have) from the deployment 6 months ago 5-8 would be unfit for active duty due to health and the rest would have joined before being drafted. And My wife would be on the front lines being an E-7 ready to fight.
What Tithing is for is building the church and maintenance of the buildings and its grounds. It use to be that the people had to build on there own and fund it. not now it is fully paid for. the fast offerings paid once a month based on the cost of two meals or a little more is for humanitarian aid (that is a much smaller amount). that is the money that funds the farms for the Bishops wear house and all the other aid to help in disasters.
Well lets see At the end of the year the Bishop hands you a piece of paper that has all you tithes and offerings. He asks you is this correct. You say yes or no. then he asks are you a full tithe payer or not. You say yes or no. IT is a requirement to go to the temple to try to obey the commandments of God. if your not a full tithe payer most likely you would not care to loose your responsibility in the ward.
i think sure they can tax all religion in the US, and if you do not belong to a religion/church you should then pay double the tax. reason being, why should donators be taxed again? if you donate to a church, you donate already taxed money. why its called a donation. so if you dont donate... pay more.
thats the democrat thinking for you, instead of finding a solution (cuts) tax more....lol. some people need a not just a life, but a job. i think the "needy" welfare baby momma's out there ALL need a job, and those welfare baby daddy's as well. MAYBE if they worked some of those hand outs off we wouldnt be looking in every nook and cranny for someone to tax, or raise taxes on. some people are lazy, and pathetic, this is what needs to be changed 1st, before we can change anything.
i dont belong to any religious sect.
..."Obama and his croonies"...
Now that's funny. I got this picture of Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Perry Como, etc. standing on stage with Obama singing the greatest hits from the 40's and 50's.
It is time to tax all churches
All religions are nutty but these guys take it to the next level.
So Romney donated less than 10% (9.7% looks less to me but Mitt I am sure has some clever argument for it).
On another note - I am really curious to see vatican's and in general catholic church's financial holdings and business. That must make mormons look really poor.
I am still fascinated by the fact so many people are too dumb to start their own thread, and instead hit the reply button to the first comment at the top of the list. Nearly 100 of you. Man, people are dumb! All because your too lazy to scroll to the bottom. Only about 3 people addressed the comment that Chris-749391 made, and the rest of you went OFF OFF OFF his comment making it a whole different discussion! START YOUR OWN COMMENT!
Here's an idea:
Tax all religions in the USA and give all that money to NASA. See what kinds of discoveries and achievments we would accomplish then, rather than filling the pockets of liars and contributing to nothing.
This is just more proof that the tax exemption for religious organizations should end...
Tax all religions and wipe out the debt...
The Church leaves it open for before or after taxes. it is your choice.
Yes Larry...you have to have hate to be a Muslim...that's why all 2.8 million of American Muslims are out there performing hateful acts. C'mon...talk about pigeonholing an entire people. But, that's what we do as an American society, isn't it?
Go ahead and collapse it again... YOU CANNOT HIDE FROM THE TRUTH!
All you need to know about the Mormon Church is found:
In Fawn Brodie's "No Man , Knows My Name "
A bio of Joseph Smith who was anything but an honest man. Take note particularly of his use of ancient Egyptian Papyri, which Smith misrepresented as Mormon artifacts. And his rewrite of the pages of The Book of Mormons destroyed by Martin Harris's wife because she wanted him to have no part in Smith's deception. Smith then came back to Harris with and created different translation which now makes up the beginning of that book. Incidentally these transations were done with seer stones. Nothing a Christian should sanctify. Of course this was all ordained by God according to Smith.
By researching Mark Hofmann's infamous "Salamander Letter" and the killing that followed. And the very real fears of the Church at the very highest levels that his forgeries were real documents. They clearly don't believe their own history. The reason the key document was of such interest is that it showed a mere salamander as the figure who directed Smith to the Golden Plates (and not the Angel Moroni) which he translated into Mormon dogma. Hofmann was extorting from the church and was only found out when one of his bombs went off in his car, crippling him. In his trunk were found scraps pf papyri that he was going to sell as well in the guise of Mormon artifacts Mormon. He is now serving a life sentence in the same prison as the Unabomber. All of his 'documents" were proven frauds.
The FACT that Smith had multiple witnesses sign testimony that they had seen these Golden Plates when all they had really seen was a burlap sack and then felt the weight of the contents of that bag. Smith telling them bad consequences would come if they actually viewed the plates.
By researching "The Kinderhook Plates" - a series of forged brass plates which had no meaning and were intentionally given to Smith who was "translating" them at the time of his death. It was a test by three Illinois men who had no faith in Smith.
Smith's failed bank in Kirtland, Ohio which cost many original members their wealth. Also of course "ordained" by God.
Smith was jailed and killed in jail in Carthage, Illinois (actually in the courtyard after escaping initially) because he had ordered the destruction of a printing press of one of his critics. Hardly the work a proper American.
The fact that Mormonism could be debunked by an examination of the Hill Cumorah in Upstate NY. If they are not an astounding number of skeletons beneath that hill then it is of little meaning as a great battle was to have taken place there. With modern technology this would not require destruction of that site. But Mormons own that land and will allow no such thing. Of course this is also near the spot where Smith "found" his original plates.
And there is so much more.
The end question is whether something good can come from a fraud? Admittedly Mormons are very supportive of each other and their communities. They come across as eerily sincere people. But again, "Can something good come from a fraud?" And why would any "God" ever ordain such a thing?
when i was young, even tho my family was catholic, i some how was going to a mormon youth thing 2 times a week. it was like a bible study class. read/study verses from the bible and take a quiz.. and we all had some activities of sorts after. we were all in a room, like a small gym, wood floors, mats.. you know the kids gym like in school, smaller. we were all lined up, and before the start they would give some sort of speech. i thought i was hearing things when the woman talking to all of us, said some thing in gaurds to only "we" will go to heaven. my buddy i saw only on these days, i asked, if i heard her right, and said i did. kind of could say words got pretty ugly right off, and i was never allowed back.
i never under stood, because i was told the jesus saviour, and no need, believe free pass into heaven. no matter what. yet even when i questioned my own faith advisor on this, he said basically the same, only it was a true catholic that is able to... da-da-da.. later i found, its basically the same thing from every one.
i find it hard to imagine, and i maybe wrong.... how this free pass works, when you still have to stand before God for judgement. the book is flawed. just my opinion. that or the christian religion is flawed, and that would be all of them. nothing is a free pass without an honest heart. even then.... it looks like a maybe.
Whatever you experienced in your youth sounds weird to me--as in misunderstood. I misunderstood when I was young too, but when I came back to the LDS church as an adult, I found that I had missed a LOT, most of all the spirituality. Look again.
My biggest problem with the Mormon church, their history always says they are related to the native americans. THat Native Americans are a "lost" tribe. Um, I'm Native American, I also teach the history and culture of the different tribes. And nowhere in any of the origin myths of the tribes is it stated we came from any of the places Joseph Smith claims. And he claimed alot of when it came to the Native people.
Although many church members have assumed that the Book of Mormon peoples were the ancestors of ALL Native Americans, LDS scholars and archaeologists have shown that this is not so. In fact there is cultural, chronologically and geographically matching, archaeological and linguistic evidence for only a small region of Mesoamerica as the site of these events and peoples. ( See An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, by John L. Sorenson. Also Hugh Nibley’s Lehi in the Desert and The World of the Jaredites. These books are getting to be “old” themselves, so they do not include research from recent decades. However, they give much sound scholarly material and a more solid perspective than the shallow and uninformed assumptions too often made by many LDS folk about this topic.)
Reverand Jeffress said. "And I still maintain there are vast differences in theology between Mormons and Christians."
This seems to be a common view among many Christians and actually they are right to say that there are some major differences, although there are more similarities than differences. However, there are also vast differences between current Christianity and Early Christianity.
If Christianity means “historic orthodox mainstream Christianity” of today then I would agree that Mormonism is not historic Christianity; at least not in every doctrine. Although Mormons have much in common with other Christians Mormons also believe differently than historic Christians in some key areas. But the real questions to ask are 1) What is original Christianity? 2) Is mainstream Christianity of today the same as original Christianity? It turns out that Joseph Smith was right. Mormonism is a restoration of Original Christianity. It is not my intent to criticize Christians of today. However, with all the criticism of Mormonism it is important to notice that in many areas of belief Mormons are closer to original Christianity than are most Christians of today.
Mormons believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. Our first Article of Faith states: We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. However “Trinity’ is a word that is not found in the Bible. Nor are the definitions and wording formulations in the extra-Biblical creeds found in the Bible. In 325 AD a council of about 300 (out of 1800 serving) bishops gathered in Nicea at the request of the pagan Emperor Constantine and formulated a creed that tried to reconcile the Biblical statements that there three persons called “God” and yet there was “one” God. They then forced all Christians to accept their solution as “gospel”, with varying results. Theological debates and other councils continued to tweak the concept for centuries which produced additional creeds.
Mormons are not supposed to be Christian because we have some doctrinal differences with other Christian groups of today. The foundation for the beliefs of these other groups is the creeds of the 4th. 5th, and 6th centuries and so on.
For example; in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is a non-Biblical creed, we read that "there is but one God, a most holy spirit, without body, parts or passions," thus denying the resurrected Christ, for if Christ is not risen and we do not believe him when he tells us that he has an immortal body, we can then have no hope of a resurrection (Phil 3:21.)
Contrary to the creeds, the resurrected Jesus taught: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." (Luke 24:39)
From this passage we know that Jesus had his physical body after the resurrection. We also know that when Christ comes again, he will still have his physical body. (Zech. 14:4; 12:10; 13:6; John 20:24-28, Acts 1:9-11; Rev 1:7; 1 Cor. 15:3-8, 12-20, 35-42; D&C 93:33).
It is claimed that Mormons are wrong because they believe in extra-Biblical revelation and scriptur Yet much of Christianity believes in extra-Biblical creeds and councils formulated centuries after the time of Christ and the Apostles. Most of the wording formulations in these creeds cannot be found in the Bible. This is often the excuse used to exclude members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) from being Christian. It is well known to historians that Christian doctrine changed over time and across different Christian groups.
The Bible is then viewed through the lens of these creeds causing certain interpretations to be favored and other biblical teachings to be minimized or ignored. Interestingly, if you look at the doctrines of the early church fathers before the creeds, they are very Mormon-like. In a number of doctrinal areas the early Christians were good Mormons and would be rejected as non-Christian by many Christians of today.
In many areas of belief (probably the majority of areas) Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) believe the same as most other Christians. It is true that in some limited areas – some very critical ones – the beliefs of Mormons differ from other Christians. Likewise there are some major areas of difference between Catholics and Protestants and likewise between one Protestant group and the next. Every denomination could make the claim that the other groups are not Christian because those other beliefs differ from their own.
Joseph Smith taught “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it”. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 121).
The central belief of Mormons is that Christ came into the world as the Son of God. He healed the sick, caused the lame to walk, the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and restored life to the dead. He commissioned twelve Apostles to whom he gave authority. He suffered in Gethsemane, died on the cross, and was resurrected and will come again. He, and only He, provides the means for us to be washed clean in his blood from our sins, which sins we can never correct on our own or through our own works. If that is not Christian I don’t know what is. Christ never taught the need to believe in anything like the creeds. Those came later.
Mormon belief is very much like the teachings of the earlier Christians – before the creeds – and also matches the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. The further back in time you go the more Mormon-like Christian doctrine becomes. Mormons are often portrayed as non-Christian when we don’t believe in the later extra-Biblical creedal formulations.
To mike-32658799 Mormon Businesses are taxed the same as any other business.
To mike-32658799
I don't thing your statement is correct in which you say that the Mormon Church pays no taxes when t hey sell the business. Cite the law which says that. If it were true it would not be a Mormon problem - it would apply to all Churches and their business holdings.
To maridanne On Your DNA comment:
Some critics have scoffed at finds of European, Middle Eastern, and even Jewish DNA in American Indians. They say that these are contaminations which occurred after Columbus and do not represent pre-Columbian DNA. However, they cite no evidence for this that I have seen. Certainly there was mixture of European DNA with American Indians after Columbus. However, we cannot assume that all Old World DNA found in Native Americans is due to post-Columbus admixture. DNA testing of some pre-Colombian remains yields DNA types matching Europe and even Israel.
The evidence from mitochondrial DNA, passed on by mothers only, is supplemented by evidence from Y-chromosomes, which are passed on by fathers only. Native American Y-chromosomes show a variety of haplogroups, including haplogroups 4 and 1C (Karafet et al., 1999), which are also characteristic of Jewish peoples (Hammer et al., 2000). Haplogroup 1C is common enough in the New World that it has been proposed as a major founder haplogroup for the New World. Karafet is one of the co-authors in Hammer et al. (2000), and his 1999 paper is cited.
Haplogroup X
For some time haplogroup X, found in American Indians, did not show up in Asia. This suggested a migration to the New World from somewhere other than Asia. When X was found in the Middle East and Europe it seemed to open up the possibility of migration from the Middle East.
Haplogroup X, can be traced to Europe, and is found in North American populations, said Dr Theodore Schurr of the Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research in San Antonio, Texas. Dr Schurr said: "This is one of the intriguing findings that we have come across recently. These data imply that haplogroup X was present in the New World long before Europeans first arrived in the New World, before Columbus or the Vikings or anybody else."
The find has led to speculation that ancient people crossed the Atlantic from the Old World, because evidence of the X haplogroup had not been found in Asia. Dr Schurr said: "Haplogroup X was brought to the New World by an ancient Eurasian population in a migratory event distinct from those bringing the other four lineages to the Americas."
However, a new report (Derenko, 2001) showed that haplogroup X was found in central Asia after all. This was thought to explain the X in American Indians. However, there are some problems with linking the Asian X to American Indian X.
The X DNA, found in a little pocket in central Asia called Altai, turned out to be a variant which is different from that found in the New World. X DNA in the New World contains a variant called 225A which is a major marker for the X haplogroup in American Indians (Brown et al. (1998) but it is not found in the Asian variant. The work of Reidla et al. (2003) confirms this finding. Reidla et al. state that the small pocket of haplogroup X DNA in Siberia "are more likely explained by recent gene flow from Europe or from West Asia" rather than being remnants of a group that migrated to the Americas anciently
The DNA time clock indicates that the Asian variant of X is newer that the American Indian X showing that American Indians did not get their X DNA from the Asian source. However, the 225A variant found in American Indians is also is found in the Middle East and, to some extent, in Europe. Some geneticists have shown that the most likely source of X DNA is NORTHERN ISRAEL – the very area where the tribe of Joseph lived. The Book of Mormon peoples were Josephites. The evidence still suggests that the origin of American Indian X DNA is not Asia but the Middle East (or Europe).
DNA researchers usually go out of their way to avoid any chance of post-Columbus admixture when they carry out their research. Unfortunately this means that they often reject, out-of-hand, any samples containing DNA types that match Old World DNA other than Asian. It seems to be assumed that Asian DNA is always OK but anything else must be a recent admixture. Because of this, real evidence for other migrations may be routinely rejected. Lehi, from the Book of Mormon, was from the tribe of Joseph, one of the lost ten tribes taken captive and dispersed to the north. The DNA types his party carried is unknown. The tribe of Joseph inhabited the northern part of Israel. Studies by Shlush et. Al. (The Druze: A Population Genetic Refugium of the Near East, 2008) show that the X haplogroup may have originated in the area of northern Israel (near where the tribe of Joseph resided at one time) and then spread to other parts of the earth from there. X haplogroup is found among American Indians
Samples of American Indian DNA which match European, or Middle Eastern DNA may be the smoking gun for Lehi’s DNA but those types are always assumed to be contaminated. No doubt some are but is it scientific to assume without finding out? Even some Asian DNA may be Lehi’s DNA type. Haplogrop X is found in northern Israel and has been shown to match Native American X better than the Asian X as shown in a study by Shlush.
The haplogroup X occurs most among Algonkian-speaking groups such as the Ojibwa, and has been detected in two pre-Colombian north American populations. Today, haplogroup X is found in between two and four per cent of European populations, and in the Middle East, particularly in Israel. The complex origins of the first Americans has also been highlighted by an analysis of thousands of skulls from around the world. A team of anthropologists from the University of Michigan found that the study confirmed the complex origins of Native Americans that have been suggested by recent archeological and genetic studies. Many pre-Colombian skulls demonstrate cranial features of Europeans but not current American Indians.
According to Science Magazine: "haplogroup X was only confirmed in the genes of a smattering of living people in Europe and Asia Minor, including Italians, Finns, and certain Israelis. The team's review of published mtDNA sequences suggests that it may also be in Turks, Bulgarians, and Spaniards. Also Shlush et. Al. (The Druze: A Population Genetic Refugium of the Near East, 2008.) show that X haplogroup found in northern Israel is likely a refugium of X DNA which was more widely typical of the area in the past. The conclusion of the study includes this interesting statement: “It is thus likely that the global diversity of this haplogroup evolved in the Near East and adjacent regions of western Eurasia.”
A study out of California sparked the DNA issue. They wanted to prove the Book of Mormon false. They gathered American Indian DNA and when they did find some DNA from the middle east (where the Book of Mormon people migrated from) they threw it out because it didn’t help them make their case. Now that’s not very scientific. Considering the current state of DNA studies (see below) no one can prove the Book of Mormon either true or false using DNA research. Here’s why I say that:
DNA-related attacks on the Book of Mormon misrepresent scientific findings by falsely claiming that Native American DNA originated solely from Asia. While Asia appears to be the leading source of ancient immigrants to the Americas, there is plenty of room for additional groups coming to the continent, and several studies have found evidence for non-Asian DNA that cannot be explained by modern European admixture. Some of this evidence is found in pre-Colombian burial sites with DNA connections to Europe and the Middle East.
Approximately ninety percent of the Amerindian population died out following contact with the Europeans; most of this was due to infectious disease against which they had no defense. The elimination of 90% of the gene pool makes it impossible to prove or disprove whether any specific gene type was there before Columbus’s discovery of the New World. In fact, non-LDS molecular anthropologist Michael H. Crawford wrote that the Spanish Conquest "squeezed the entire Amerindian population through a genetic bottleneck. ... This population reduction has forever altered the genetics of the surviving groups, thus complicating any attempts at reconstructing the pre-Columbian genetic structure of most New World groups," (The Origins of Native Americans, 1998).
Another effect on population dynamics, known as the "founder effect," happens when few individuals -- the founders -- leave a larger group and carry with them only a small subset of the genetic markers from the original population. This subset may not be typical of the source population. This may have happened with the founding Book of Mormon peoples. It is often assumed that if the Book of Mormon is true the people would have typical Jewish DNA. The problem with this is, we don’t know what typical Jewish DNA looked like 2600 years ago. We don’t know if Lehi’s DNA was typical Jewish DNA. Lehi was not of the tribe of Judah.
We don’t have a sample of DNA from any of the individuals in the original Book of Mormon party that migrated to the Americas. We don’t have Lehi’s DNA. Consequently, taking samples of current American DNA does not good because we don’t have any original DNA to compare it to. We don’t know what the original Book of Mormon peoples DNA looked like. You can assume that Lehi & party had typical Jewish DNA but that is not known. Furthermore, the Book of Mormon states that its people are from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. These tribes were taken captive and dispersed. The tribe of Judah, which remained, became the basis for the Jewish people. Nobody knows what Ephraim or Manasseh DNA looks like. The area of Jerusalem has been overrun multiple times with new people. People have been taken captive multiple times. This tends to remove DNA types and insert new DNA types. We don’t know what the DNA was in 600 BC.
Additionally, Ephraim and Manasseh’s mtDNA came from their mother, Asenath, who was Egyptian. Egyptians have haplogroup T DNA and, interestingly, Haplogroup T shows up among American Indian DNA. Could T DNA be the smoking gun for Middle Eastern migration to the Americas before Columbus? Well, we don’ know what Lehi & his party’s DNA was. There is no way to prove anything one way or the other until we dig up Lehi’s body and we know it is his body and until we also dig up some Ephraim and Manasseh DNA from 600 BC Jerusalem for comparison.
MtDNA studies have found that the DNA of Jewish people dispersed throughout the world closely reflect the DNA of the host population and have little in common with other Jewish groups. Mitochondrial DNA studies have had little success in linking different Jewish groups. The University of London study found that females of Jewish groups from different geographic areas were largely unrelated. Nicholas Wade wrote that the women in nine geographic areas from Georgia to Morocco have vastly different genetic histories from the men. The identities of the founding women are a mystery because their genetic signatures are not related to present day Middle Eastern populations or to each other. Mark Thomas and colleagues report “In no case is there clear evidence of unbroken genetic continuity from early dispersal events to the present. Unfortunately, in many cases, it is not possible to infer the geographic origin of the founding mtDNA’s within the different Jewish groups with any confidence.”
Dr. Shey Cohen of Harvard University observed “The authors are correct in saying the historical origins of most Jewish communities are unknown.” Even close mtDNA homologies would not necessarily prove an Israelite origin for the mtDNA of modern Jews but the conspicuous absence of such homologies provide strong circumstantial evidence of non-Israelite origins for the mtDNA and much of the other genetic makeup of most modern Jews. With no evidence that modern Jewish mtDNA accurately represents the mtDNA of ancient Israel and considerable evidence to the contrary, claims of Israelite lineage cannot be either confirmed or denied based on mtDNA data.
Then we have the problem caused by "genetic drift," which basically boils down to "lucky genes." As the number of generations increase from a founding mother to her descendants, the chance of her DNA disappearing increases with each generation. For example, if you go back two generations (to your grandparents), there are four individuals (two parents for each of your parents), two of which are female (grandmothers on both sides). Only one of these grandmothers will have passed on her mtDNA to you, regardless of whether you are male or female. You will not have the mtDNA of one of your grandmothers.
DNA markers can and have disappeared. Most of the DNA studies done on Native Americans -- the root of Book of Mormon-DNA criticisms -- are based on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is inherited from the mother. If we go back 10 generations, you have 1,024 ancestral slots, or number of possible contributors to your genetic makeup. The actual number of progenitors is actually lower than the number of slots because some of these people will show up in several places of the available 1,024 ancestral slots. Of these 1,024 potential ancestors, 512 are females. Only one of them has contributed your mtDNA
Using the mtDNA mutations as a guide, it is possible to trace all modern mtDNA lineages back to a single African female ancestor. Geneticists have named this ancestor the African "Eve," but despite this name, she was not necessarily the only woman on the planet. The mtDNA lineages corresponding to other women simply disappeared because their offspring failed to produce additional continuous female lineages (a phenomenon known in population genetics as genetic drift), because of natural or manmade calamities that wiped out a significant portion of the population (an event referred to as a population bottleneck), or because they were selected against due to the detrimental effect of specific mutations. This African "Eve" was the only one that was successful in perpetuating her mtDNA lineage through the generations. Therefore, because of genetic drift, population bottlenecks, or natural selection, the mtDNA lineages observed in today's population do not reflect the full range of mtDNA variation that occurred throughout human history.
Some ancient Native American genes have apparently gone extinct. mtDNA analysis of ancient Native American brains from Florida show genes that may have been lost from the Americas (Schurr et al., 1990, p. 619; see also Pääbo et al., 1988). Similar conclusions come from analysis of blood groups. Genes for the B and AB blood types have been largely lost in the Americas, but these genes were present in pre-Columbian humans in Peru.
Actually, non-O genes were certainly in the Andes before Columbus, based on the study of ancient Peruvian mummies by M.J. Allison et al. (1978), who found all ABO blood group types (A, B, AB, and O) in mummies dating from 3000 B.C. to 1400 A.D., but in mummies dating after that period to 1650 A.D. only types A and O were found in their work. Clearly, some genes were lost in the Americas
For example, Ribeiro-dos-Santos (1996) examined mtDNA in ancient South American Amerindians and found that 39% of the samples were not in the four major mtDNA haplotypes that dominate modern Native Americans, and less than half of these other types could have been haplotype X (Ribeiro-dos-Santos et al., 1996 and 1997). They state that the evidence "permits us to suggest that, in addition to the postulated bottleneck effect during the migration from Asia to the Americas, the depopulation effect started by European colonization in the 16th century contributed to the reduction in genetic variability of Amerindians" (abstract, Ribeiro-dos-Santos et al., 1996).
O'Rourke et al. (2000) also discuss the extinction of genes, noting that other authors have called the nineteenth century the "extinction period" for southern South America, and state that it "is not obvious that samples obtained from populations undergoing decimation and extinction would be representative of precontact groups. Indeed, reduced populated size during this period would be expected to be accompanied by reduced genetic variability" (p. 232).
Monsalve (1997) also discusses several other studies supporting the concept of other ancient haplotypes in the Americas.
Some LDS critics claim that Y-chromosome DNA (Ycs), inherited from the father, supports the lack of "Israelite" DNA among Native Americans. Y-chromosome markers, however, can have the same problems as mtDNA markers. Population geneticist Ugo Perego, who currently lives in Utah, was born and raised in Italy, where he traces his ancestry back to the mid-17th century. His Ycs, however, is rare among Europeans and is mostly found in east Asia. Perego has three young sons, all of whom carry this same Ycs marker. If data was collected from Perego, his sons and other Italians in his Utah neighborhood, this "founder effect" would incorrectly suggest that a large portion of Italians are paternally related to eastern Asian populations.
For an example of disappearing DNA we note the recent DNA study of more than 131,000 modern Icelanders, which discovered that many DNA markers disappeared in just over a century. According to DNA tests, more than 86 percent of Icelandic males descended from just 26 percent of potential male ancestors in their family tree who were born between 1848 and 1892 and also lived in Iceland. Among the female population, nearly 92 percent descended from only 22 percent of potential female ancestors in their family tree who were born between the same years as the male ancestors.
Thus we see that the vast majority of the Icelandic ancestors -- from just 150 years ago -- did not contribute mtDNA or Ycs to their descendants. Conversely, a small minority of Icelandic ancestors from the same 150 years ago contributed the bulk of DNA markers to their now-living descendants. Most of the Icelandic people living today who have genealogical records showing that their ancestors lived in Iceland 150 years ago could not detect DNA for those ancestors.
Norse migrations to the Americas show that it is possible for major migrations to a new land to occur, persist for centuries, and then go into oblivion, much as happened for the Nephites in the Book of Mormon. Non-LDS scholar Dr. James Dixon makes several related points about the Norse in his 1993 book Quest for the Origins of the First Americans (pp. 130-132, as cited by Sorenson, pp. 8,9). He states that the Norse settlement in Vinland "demonstrates that various groups of humans could have attempted colonization of the American continents . . . only to subsequently disappear" while "evidence of their passing would be extremely difficult to detect in the archaeological record." Speaking of the extensive and long-lasting (about 500 years long) Norse settlement in Greenland, Dixon notes that Norse genes could have been mixed with native Greenland populations (Inuits or "Eskimos"), masking their European genetic ties. As a result, "the original Norse civilization of Greenland cannot be demonstrated ever to have happened based on genetic analysis of living people." That's an important lesson to keep in mind for those Book of Mormon critics who expect to see clear evidence of Semitic genes among American Indians from the Nephite colonists.
To chad-1841583Restored
There is little historic evidence that Joseph was sexually intimate with anyone other than Emma Smith. Neutral historians and researchers say that this argument (that Joseph Smith was lustful) is a week anti-Mormon argument without historic support. Not what non-Mormon historians say:
Non-Mormon George Bernard Shaw declared:
“Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.” (Bernard Shaw, The Future of Political Science in America; an Address by Mr. Bernard Shaw to the Academy of Political Science, at the Metropolitan Opera House, New York, on the 11th. April, 1933 (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933) as cited in Richard Vetterli, Mormonism, Americanism and Politics (Salt Lake City: Ensign Publishing, 1961),
Historian Richard Bushman shows that Joseph's relationship with his plural wives was a matter of obeying commandment. There is little if any evidence of licentiousness. Bushaman says:
"Joseph did not marry women to form a warm, human companionship but to create a network of related wives, children, and kinsmen that would endure into the eternities."( Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 440.)
As non-Mormon church historian Ernst Benz wrote:
“Mormon polygamy has nothing to do with sexual debauchery but is tied to a strict patriarchal system of family order and demonstrates in the relationship of the husband to his individual wives all the ethical traits of a Christian, monogamous marriage. It is completely focused on bearing children and rearing them in the bosom of the family and the Mormon community. Actually, it exhibits a very great measure of selflessness, a willingness to sacrifice, and a sense of duty.” (Ernst Benz, "Imago dei: Man as the Image of God," FARMS Review 17/1 (2005): 223–254.)
To voxrationis Re Fawn Brodie:
First, the name of her book is "No Man Knows My History."
Second, her book along with John Krakauer’s “Under the Banner of Heaven are two of the most inaccurate histories of Mormonism and Joseph Smith ever published as show by the research of more credible historians.
To voxrationis Re Hoffman's Salamander Forgery:
The historical record is clear that the Church did nothing to hide the Hofmann "Salamander Letter," even though to some it appeared to pose problems for the Church's story of its origins.
3 January 1984
Hofmann tried to persuade both President Hinckley and the Church Historical Department to purchase the "Salamander Letter." Both declined. If the Church wanted to hide the letter they would have snapped it up.
Lyn Jacobs [an associate of Hofmann's] visited the Historical Department to talk to don Schmidt. He showed Schmidt [the salamander letter]....Jacobs suggested it might be one the church would like to own. Jacobs said he wanted a ten-dollar Mormon gold piece for it. The most coveted item among collectors of Mormon money, the rare coin was extremely valuable. Schmidt thought Jacobs had an inflated idea of the letter's worth and told him he would never get what he was asking....Knowing that the price he was asking exceeded what Schmidt and [supervising general authority Elder G. Homer] Durham were authorized to spend for acquisitions, Jacobs had already made an appointment with Gordon Hinckley...
Jacobs again offered to give the letter to the church in exchange for a ten-dollar Mormon gold piece, whose value Jacobs would later approximate at from sixty to over one hundred thousand dollars. Like Schmidt and Durham, Hinckley said he felt the asking price was too high. Jacobs then offered to trade the letter for a copy of A Book of Commandments, valued by Jacobs at thirty to forty thousand dollars. Hinckley considered the offer briefly, then said of the letter, 'I don't know if we really want it.'
...After Jacobs failed to persuade Hinckley to buy the letter, he went back to see Schmidt [in the Historical Department]. Schmidt tried to convince Jacobs that he was asking too much for the document, explaining that only if he dropped his price to a reasonable figure would the church consider buying it.
'What's that?" Schmidt recalled Jacobs saying when he mentioned a 'reasonable figure.'
'Well,' Schmidt responded, 'you get down there, and I'll tell you when it's reasonable.'
'You have to have it,' Jacobs insisted of the letter.
'No, I don't have to have it,' Schmidt replied. 'No such thing.'
Later, Hofmann tried his own hand at offering it to the Historical Department through Schmidt. Hofmann left the document with Schmidt, who took it in to his supervisor, Earl Olson. 'He and I read it carefully,' Olson recalled. 'Remarked that it did not ring true, and that it bore too much resemblance to the story in Howe's 'Mormonism Unveiled' [sic; the actual title is Mormonism Unvailed]. We invited Elder Durham to sit down with us and read it, then brought out Howe's book and compared the stories. This was reported to Pres. Hinckley. It was decided that we should not purchase the letter.... (Richard E. Turley, Jr. Victims: The LDS Church and the Mark Hofmann Case (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 81, 83. ISBN 0252018850 Google books)
This is a strange series of events if the Church or its leaders were determined to suppress or hide the letter, or somehow impair its study.
Note that President Gordon B. Hinckley first saw the Salamander Letter on this date, but refused its purchase. He wrote soon thereafter:
We have nothing to hide. Our enemies will try to make much of this letter, but any fair-minded individual who will read it in terms of the time it was written and the language of the day will not see it as detrimental to the history of those events connected with the restoration of the gospel. (Gordon B. Hinckley Journal, 10 February 1984.)
Thus, President Hinckley was aware that the letter could be used as a weapon against the Church, but he did not move to buy it, and did nothing to prevent it passing into other hands.
To voxrationis Re The Plates:
You say: "The FACT that Smith had multiple witnesses sign testimony that they had seen these Golden Plates when all they had really seen was a burlap sack and then felt the weight of the contents of that bag. Smith telling them bad consequences would come if they actually viewed the plates."
This is a false statement not supported by historic evidence. Of course you can find critics quoting other critics who quote other third hand anti_Mormon sources - but that's not real history.
Eleven other official witnesses saw the plates and a number of additional non-official witnesses saw them.
John Whitmer published this on about March 27th 1836:
“I desire to testify unto all . . . that I have most assuredly seen the plates from whence the Book of Mormon [was] translated, and that I have handled these plates, and know of a surety that Joseph Smith, jr. has translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God.”( John Whitmer, "To the patrons of the Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate," (March 1836) ).
Of this early time Martin says:
I hefted the plates many times, and should think they weighed forty or fifty pounds.( Joel Tiffany interview, Tiffany's Monthly, August 1859, 166; also in Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1996—2002), 2:306.)
Martin said that he and his family lifted the plates in a box when first investigating Joseph’s story, and he held the plates on his knee while hiding them in the forest with Joseph. The record was wrapped at the time. (See Anderson, Investigating, 25—26; Millennial Star 21 (20 August 1859); also in Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 2:297. Martin spoke of handling the leaves of the plates, but possibly when the record was covered, as William and Emma Smith did)
Martin sometimes said that he saw the plates themselves and other times he said that he saw the plates covered. This is not contradictory because these remarks refer to different occasions.
Martin spent the last five years of his life in upper Cache Valley in Utah. When people would come by and ask him about the plates he would use physical objects to emphasize the reality of the plates:
One time he raised his hand and asked, "'Gentlemen, do you see that hand? Are you sure you see it? Are your eyes playing you a trick or something? . . . Well, as sure as you see my hand so sure did I see the angel and the plates.”( Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 116)
Another one that I have run into several times over the years is this Martin Harris account. I will first give it as the critics usually quote it:
Now, Martin, do you really believe that you did see an angel, when you were awake? “No,” said Martin, “I do not believe it.”
The critics are fond of quoting only the first sentence and then they cut the quote off. The critic usually goes on to cite this as proof that Martin Harris denied his testimony.
But here is the whole quote:
Now, Martin, do you really believe that you did see an angel, when you were awake?’ ‘No,’ said Martin, ‘I do not believe it.’ The crowd were delighted, but soon a different feeling prevailed, as Martin true to his trust, said, ‘Gentlemen, what I have said is true, from the fact that my belief is swallowed up in knowledge; for I want to say to you that as the Lord lives I do know that I stood with the Prophet Joseph Smith in the presence of the angel, and it was the brightness of day.
To paraphrase, Martin is essentially saying:
No I don’t just believe… I KNOW.
Why do these supposedly totally objective and un-biased researchers seem to always forget to finish this quote? These people have the whole quote available to them but they deliberately leave out the rest of the paragraph. Is this good or honest scholarship? No! It is not. This is the type of “scholarship” that I consistently find in works of critics like Grant Palmer.
Joseph Smith III visited David Whitmer in 1884, along with a committee from the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and several onlookers. According to Joseph III's memoirs, one of the non-believers there was a military officer, who suggested the possibility that Whitmer "had been mistaken and had simply been moved upon by some mental disturbance or hallucination, which had deceived him into thinking he saw" the angel and the plates. Joseph III's account of Whitmer's response is quoted below.
"How well and distinctly I remember the manner in which Elder Whitmer arose and drew himself up to his full height—a little over six feet—and said, in solemn and impressive tones: 'No sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes, and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!'.” (See Memoirs of Joseph Smith III, cited in Mary Audentia Smith Anderson, Joseph Smith III and the Restoration (Independence, MO: 1952), pp. 311-12. Cited in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 88. ISBN 0877478465. )
George Godfrey had this experience with Martin Harris in 1829:
"In introducing us, Mr. Godfrey said, 'Brother Harris, I have brought these young men to hear your statement as to whether or not you believe the Book of Mormon to be true.' His face was turned to the wall. He turned and faced us and said, 'Now I don't believe, but I know it to be true, for with these eyes I saw the angel and with these ears (pointing to them) I heard him say it was a true and correct record of an ancient people that dwelt upon this the American continent'” (Alma L. Jensen, attested statement, Dayton, Ohio, 1 June 1936, L. Tom Perry Special Collections Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.)
Oliver Cowdery was asked, “Was your testimony based on a dream, was it the imagination of your mind, was it an illusion”? He responded:
"My eyes saw, my ears heard, and my understanding was touched, and I know that whereof I testified is true. It was no dream, no vain imagination of the mind—it was real."( Jacob F. Gates, "Testimony of Jacob Gates," Improvement Era no. 15 (March 1912), 418–419.)
William H. Homer, a relative of Martin Harris, passed through Kirtland in 1870 and stopped to see Martin. Martin took him to see the Kirtland Temple and therein, Martin expressed some bitter feelings towards some of the latter-day Saints in Utah. At that point the following dialogue occurred starting with Martin who expressed his disappointment at not being appointed to high office:
"I should have been president of the Church." Then Homer asked Martin Harris, "'Do you still believe that the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith was a prophet?" Martin Harris, standing in the Kirtland Temple on a bright, winter day, pointed to one of the arched Gothic windows where the sun was streaming through it and said, "Do I see the sun shining? Just as surely as the sun is shining on us . . . I saw the plates; I saw the angel."(Preston Nibley, comp., The Witnesses of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1973), 117—18.)
In response to two encyclopedia publications which claimed that he denied his testimony David Whitmer published a pamphlet addressed to all believers in Christ.
I will say once more to all mankind, that I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof. I also testify to the world, that neither Oliver Cowdery or Martin Harris ever at any time denied their testimony. . . . I was present at the death bed of Oliver Cowdery, and his last words were, "Brother David, be true to your testimony to the Book of Mormon." [David went on to talk about the Eight Witnesses also as having never denied their testimony.] (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ (Richmond, Mo.: David Whitmer, 1887), 8.
Neither did the eight witnesses deny their testimony or ever indicate that their experiences were anything other than real. In an interview with John Whitmer by a Mr. P. Wilhelm Poulson is recorded the following:
I said: I am aware that your name is affixed to the testimony in the Book of Mormon, that you saw the plates?
He-It is so, and that testimony is true.
I-Did you handle the plates with your hands?
He-I did so!
I-Then they were a material substance?
He-Yes, as material as anything can be.
I-They were heavy to lift?
He-Yes, and you know gold is a heavy metal, they were very heavy.
I-How big were the leaves?
He-So far as I recollect, 8 by 6 or 7 inches.
I-Were the leaves thick?
He-Yes, just so thick, that characters could be engraven on both sides.
I-How were the leaves joined together?
He-In three rings, each one in the shape of a D with the straight line towards the centre.
I-Did you see them covered with a cloth?
He-No. He handed them uncovered into our hands, and we turned the leaves sufficient to satisfy us.
(Deseret News, 6 August 1878; also in Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 5:247–49 Letter, Far West, Missouri, 11 December 1876.)
In late 1878 John Whitmer answered Heman C. Smith regarding the signed statement by the eight witnesses published in front of the book of Mormon:
"That testimony was, is, and will be true, henceforth and forever. (Smith and Smith, History of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 1:57n6; copied from the original that was in Heman Smith's possession (now unlocated), with italics used for the whole sentence in the first printing, as quoted by Richard Lloyd Anderson "Attempts to Redefine the Experience of the Eight Witnesses" Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Maxwell Institute, Volume 14, Issue 1, pages 18-31, 2005)
The vast majority of accounts are of the type I have quoted above. Good scholarship supports the traditional history of the Church. Bad scholarship, such as that of Grant Palmer and the like, results in revisionist history and is only achieved by ignoring the vast majority of the primary evidence and by resorting to unreliable witnesses and/or a few anomalous witnesses who are usually angry apostates with an axe to grind.
George Mantle attended a conference in Birmingham when Martin Harris demanded the right to speak and was publicly refused by the presiding officer, Cyrus H. Wheelock. Wheelock’s journal confirms Mantle's recollections. These may therefore be relied upon, especially since Mantle gave a matter-of-fact report of the words of Harris "that have from that time to this remained stamped on my memory":
"When we came out of the meeting Martin Harris was beset with a crowd in the street, expecting that he would furnish them with material to war against Mormonism; but when he was asked if Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, he answered yes; and when asked if the Book of Mormon was true, this was his answer: 'Do you know that is the sun shining on us? Because as sure as you know that, I know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, and that he translated that book by the power of God.' " (Letter of George Mantle to Marietta Walker, Dec. 26, 1888, Saint Catherine, Mo., cit. Autumn Leaves 2 (1889):141.)
While traveling to England in 1855, David B. Dille stopped at the Harris home in Kirtland and that same year recorded his visit in detail. Martin had been sick and had not eaten anything for three days. He bore his testimony:
" ‘I know that the plates have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice declared it unto us. . . . And as many of the plates as Joseph Smith translated I handled with my hands, plate after plate.' Then describing their dimensions, he pointed with one of the fingers of his left hand to the back of his right hand and said, 'I should think they were so long, or about eight inches, and about so thick, or about four inches.' " (Statement of David B. Dille, Sept. 15, 1853, deposited in Millennial Star Office, cit. Millennial Star 21 (1859):545.)
In 1870 a reporter for the Iowa State Register interviewed Martin Harris:
"Mr. Harris is now in his 88th year, though still quite vigorous and sprightly, and he is Mormon, soul and body. . . . The old gentleman evidently loves to relate the incidents with which he was personally connected, and he does it with wonderful enthusiasm. . . . Joseph Smith was the first to handle the tables, and Martin Harris, one of the appointed witnesses, the second. Mr. Harris describes the plates as being of thin leaves of gold, measuring seven by eight inches, and weighing altogether, from forty to sixty pounds. . . . He believes in the visitations of angels in bodily form, for he has seen and conversed with them, as he thinks, and is satisfied."( Daily Iowa State Register, Aug. 28, 1870; also cit. Joseph Grant Stevenson, The Stevenson Family History (Provo, Utah, 1955) 1:156-57.)
John Thompson related that he brought two unbelievers to Harris’s home:
"One of them asked Mr. Harris if he believed the Book of Mormon to be true, and he told them no. They told him they had heard that he had never denied the truth of the book. He told them that he knew it was true, and that was past believing." (Autobiography of John Thompson, written 1922, presently owned by his daughter, Jane Dahle.)
This response from Martin, that of saying no I don’t believe, and then going on to explain that belief has nothing to do with it because he knows, is repeated in half a dozen interviews. Thomas Godfrey related that Martin Harris insisted that:
"knowledge supersedes belief," because "I saw the angel and saw the plates from which the Book of Mormon was, translated and heard the voice of God declare it was translated correctly." (Affidavit of Thomas Godfrey, July 2, 1933.)
Alma L. Jensen was present on the same occasion. He remembered the same language being used by Harris but added one detail saying that Martin pointed to his eyes and ears while talking to emphasize the reality of actually seeing and hearing. (Autobiography of Alma L. Jensen, written 1932, photocopy at Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University.)
Robert Aveson, a lifelong printer, recalled the exact day of a long interview with Harris. He asked directly about seeing the plates and the angel.
"It is not a mere belief, but is a matter of knowledge. I saw the plates and the inscriptions thereon. I saw the angel, and he showed them unto me."( Robert Aveson, "Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon," Deseret News, Apr. 2, 1927)
When about 25 years old Edward Thurman saw Martin Harris at a blacksmith shop and asked whether the Book of Mormon was true. Harris replied by asking Thurman if he could see a nearby apple tree. He was told that the vision was as factual as the reality of the apple tree. .( Private family records of Edward Moroni Thurman, copied by Ray S. Thurman, Grover, Wyoming.
A group of teenagers once approached Martin on the street and challenged him about his testimony. He asked them whether they could see a nearby chopping block. They replied that they could see it.
"Well, just as plain as you see that chopping block, I saw the plates; and sooner than I would deny it I would lay my head upon that chopping block and let you chop it off."( Statement of Comfort Elizabeth Godfrey Flinders to N. B. Lundwall, Sept. 2, 1943, Ogden, Utah, cit. Assorted Gems of Priceless Value (Salt Lake City,)
To voxrationis Re The Kinderhook Plates:
Joseph said nothing about translating the kinderhook plates in his journal, nor is there a mention of translation by Willard Richards who was assigned to take dictation for Joseph for the History of the Church, which was being compiled at the time.
The plates were in Nauvoo for only five days (April 29th thru May 3, 1843). Joseph’s diary shows the following during that time:
- Riding about the prairie apportioning land” (April 29th)
- “Attending church services” (April 30th)
- “Riding out to William Allen’s to pay off some debt on the Nauvoo House” (May 1st)
- “Picking up his wife at the ferry dock and meeting with the Apostles” (May 2nd)
- “Going to his office to meet with Sister Richards and to review the conference minutes, holding a Mayor’s court, and directing a letter be written to General Adams” (May 3rd)
-
Of the men who came from Kinderhook to deliver the plates to Nauvoo:
- Mr. Savage gave no known account of the meeting or alleged translation.
- Joshua Moore implied that the translation was not done at that time. (He only believed that the prophet could translate them.)
- Mr. Sharp (who was said to be a Mormon) had been given the plates to take to Nauvoo. However, according to Mr. Fugate (one of the people who perpetrated the hoax), Sharp “wanted to take the plates to Joe Smith”, but we refused to let them go.”
- In addition, Sharp and Marsh gave no known account of the meeting or translation.
Again, Joseph did not state that he translated them and it is unknown whether William Clayton’s statement, that Joseph translated a portion, reflected Joseph’s thoughts or not. Joseph may have initially thought that they might be authentic. At first how would he know? He may have gone to the Lord later and found out differently. You may say that this is my speculation and you would be right.
It is equally speculative to claim that William Clayton’s statement is a reflection of Joseph’s viewpoint. Nobody knows that either. Nobody has shown this to be the case. It is possible that William thought this was Joseph’s viewpoint. He could have gotten the idea from Joseph or he could have got this idea from the rumors circulating in Nauvoo at the time which rumors have been documented and have been shown to be incorrect and contradictory to each other.
Therefore, there is no case to be made against the prophet. Joseph did not buy the plates when they were for sale and he never seemed to exhibit any interest in obtaining them or examining them again. The Kinderhook plates are not proof of fraud on the part of Joseph nor are they proof of inability to translate. I know that people who are desperate to show that the Church is false would like this to be proof against the Church or against Joseph. However, good scholarship requires examining all the evidence – right?
Don Bradley has demonstrated how it is plausible that Joseph was attempting to translate manually (without inspiration) and matched a character found on the plates with a character found in the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL) The "translation" Joseph produced, as reported by William Clayton, matches the explanation given for that character in the GAEL.
It is important to note that LDS scripture, such as the Book of Mormon, or Doctrine and Covenants, have been vetted and approved for publication. Even if (and it’s a big if) Joseph translated a character or two from the Kinderhook Plates, his translation was never completed nor approved nor published by the Church.
It is also important to note that, in spite of Stanley Kimball’s widely accepted 1981 article which concludes that the Kinderhook Plates are false, there are scholars who point out that this conclusion is not accepted by all scholars who have examined the plates. “Kinderhook Plates – Fraudulent or Authentic” by David Stewart Jr.
Stewart makes the following points:
After the plates were dug up, witnesses say they were encrusted with oxidation and rust which they could not clean off by scrubbing with water so they cleaned them with sulphuric acid. Etching is done using a solution containing nitrogen. Sulphuric acid in the 19th century often had nitrogen impurities in it which could have left the residue which was interpreted as proof of etching. Also, this solution would have done some of its own etching during the cleaning process which could have removed the microscopic grooves left by an engraver and produced the pock marked look typical of etching.
Kinderhook characters also match some characters found on the Michigan artifacts. Some believe the Michigan artifacts are a fraud and others present evidence of authenticity. There are accounts that people really were finding artifacts in mounds at that time. I posit a theory. I propose the possibility that some were authentic which motivated the creation of the fakes. By definition counterfeit items are always inspired by the real thing. This is a common occurrence in artifacts. There is a robust industry in genuine Mayan artifacts and, because there is money to be made, fakes are also created. This is true of other parts of the world where artifacts are found. If some of the Michigan artifacts are real the Kinderhook characters could have been copied from them and this would explain why the kinderhook characters are also found in other ancient scripts not known at the time of Joseph Smith. Or, maybe the Kinderhook plates are also authentic after all. There is evidence on both sides as I have just pointed out.
In the absence of new information any continued effort to use the Kinderhook Plates to discredit the prophet just tells me that the person pushing the issue is not current on all the information or is biased and is willing to use one-sided evidence. This seems to me to be an act of desperation and is bad scholarship.
To voxrationis Re The Kirtland Safety Society (Failed Bank):
Warren Parrish apostatized from the church with a disgruntled attitude. In May of 1837, a general banking panic began in the eastern states and spread across the country and became known as the Panic of 1837. The Kirtland Safety Society was in serious trouble by the spring of 1837. Joseph Smith resigned from it by 8 June 1837 due to dishonesty on the part of other bank officers and publicly warned the Saints about continuing to use the Safety Society’s notes.
Warren Parrish was an officer of the Safety Society. Joseph Smith started noticing that money went missing when only Parrish had access to it. Evidence seemed clear the money was being kept in Parrish's trunk. But before Joseph Smith could get a warrant to search it, the trunk disappeared. As Heber C. Kimball records, Parrish later admitted to embezzling $20,000.00 That’s the equivalent of $475,000 today.
The Safety Society had a reserve of $21,000 in specie and notes from other banks. With that $20,000, Parrish could completely wipe out the Safety Society's liquid assets. That would ruin the Safety Society.
In addition to the $20,000.00 embezzled from the bank Warren Parrish and several other officers of the Society who had also apostatized from the church stole one hundred thousand out of the vault, sent cronies around to buy up horses, wagons, farms, and cattle. When the people deposited the notes back into the bank Parrish and his cronies would steal the money out of the vault again and repeat the process. By this means Parrish and his buddies obtained much wealth in the form of property leaving the note holders to lose when the bank failed. ( Smith, George A,[November 15, 1964] Journal of Discourses 11:1-11)
Joseph Smith, was the second largest shareholder of the Safety Society and stood to lose the most if it failed. He paid more per share than 85% of the shareholders. He probably invested more money than anyone else. Instead of bailing out at the first sign of trouble he invested more as things got worse in an effort to help the Society succeed and prevent others from losing their money. Joseph sold personal property for $5000 and put it into the Safety Society in order to save investments made by others. And last, he paid all his debts. When he left Kirtland, he left Oliver Granger in charge of his affairs, to settle all outstanding claims. Joseph actually lost a lot of money from the Safety Society – possibly more than anyone else. (White, R. McKay, “The Kirtland Safety Society)
The enemies of Joseph charged him with fraud in various property conveyances, mostly in behalf of the Church. A succession of court proceedings that extended for nearly a decade examined these claims in meticulous detail. Finally, in 1852, long after the Saints’ exodus from Illinois (so there was no conceivable political or other cause for anyone to favor the Prophet), a federal judge concluded this litigation with a decree that found no fraud or other moral impropriety by the Prophet. (See Dallin H. Oaks and Joseph I. Bentley, “Joseph Smith and Legal Process: In the Wake of the Steamboat Nauvoo,” BYU Law Review [1976]: 735.)
To DB Akron Re: Your statement saying "all revelations were stated to be over by the Apostle John in the Book of Revelations about 100 AD."
There is nothing in the Book of Revelations which says that it is the end of prophecy. In fact, the Book of Revelations itself says that there would be future revelation from angels and future prophets. See Revelations chapter 11 and chapter 14. Revelations 22:18-19 says do not add to or take from the words of “this book.” “This Book” means the book that John was writing. The Bible, including the NT was not yet assembled.
In Deuteronomy 4:2 God says don’t add or diminish from his word. But God gave most of the Bible after Deuteronomy. Clearly, man is not to add or subtract from God’s word once it is given. But it is equally clear that God can give more whenever He wants to. And he always does so by revelation to prophets.
We do NOT have a single “autograph” copy. The earliest copy we have of the NT is from the 4th century, and it includes books not in the current canon. There is no existing copy of an “inerrant” version, that is, as it came from the pens of the original writers
Actually most of those thousands of fragments are pretty tiny. Sometimes only part of one verse. There are only three major manuscripts used by most modern translations: The Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Alexandrius, and the Codex Sinaiticus. (and note that two of these three contain several books that are not in the current 66 books of the Protestant Bible.) Here is the complete text of the earliest codex:
In the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is a non-Biblical creed, we read that "there is but one God, a most holy spirit, without body, parts or passions," thus denying the resurrected Christ, for if Christ is not risen and we do not believe him when he tells us that he has an immortal body, we can then have no hope of a resurrection (Phil 3:21.) For contrary to the creed Jesus taught: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and ones, as ye see me have." (Luke 24:39)
From this passage we know that Jesus had his physical body after the resurrection. We also know that when Christ comes again, he will still have his physical body. (Zech. 14:4; 12:10; 13:6; John 20:24-28, Acts 1:9-11; Rev 1:7; 1 Cor. 15:3-8, 12-20, 35-42; D&C 93:33).
Two of the most quoted references which are twisted in an attempt to say that the Bible is complete and there can’t be more revelation or more scripture this are the following:
Revelations 22:18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Notice that nowhere in this passage does it say that God has finished his work, or that the cannon of scripture is completed. John says not to add to or take from “these things” and “this book” and “this prophecy,” which almost certainly means the book that John was writing at the time. The list of 27 books of the New Testament were not even proposed until 367 AD in Athanasius’s Easter letter. The composition of books selected to include were hotly debated for several more centuries.
Even if John were referring to the future New Testament, which was not yet assembled, his warning is an injunction that man is not to change Gods word, and not a statement which binds God so that God Himself cannot add more.
Note that God gives us the same warning in Deuteronomy 4:2 saying “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.”
So, if this commandment not to add or take away from Gods word means that the cannon of scripture is complete, then everything after Deuteronomy is false. This would mean that the WHOLE New Testament and MOST of the Old Testament, which were added after Deuteronomy, must be discarded. Clearly, God did not mean that the cannon was complete.
The other scripture that is commonly cited is this:
Galatians 1:6-9
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
See also 2 Corinthians 11:4
The idea embodied in this scripture is why Mormons don’t accept the extra-Biblical creeds and some of the mainstream orthodoxy of today. Mormons are not supposed to be Christian because we have some doctrinal differences with other Christian groups of today. The foundation for the beliefs of these other groups are the creeds of the 4th. 5th, and 6th centuries and so on, including the Westminster confession of faith. These are all extra-Biblical and no one should be held to them as a requirement for being Christian.
The Bible says that there will be more prophecies in the last days:
“in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams” (Acts 2:17).
While this prophecy received a fulfillment on the day of Pentecost, the prophecy is primarily about “the last days.” Subsequent verses set the scene for the ultimate fulfillment of this prophecy to be at the end times when Christ shall come again.
It is claimed that Mormons are wrong because they believe in extra-Biblical revelation and scripture. Yet much of Christianity believes in extra-Biblical creeds and councils formulated centuries after the time of Christ and the Apostles. Indeed, this is the source of friction between mainstream Christians of today and LDS Christians. Yet, historically, factually, and Biblically, it turns out that it’s the Mormons who are adhering to Original Christianity and Mainstream Christians of today who are holding to later forms of Christianity. Most of the wording formulations in these creeds cannot be found in the Bible. This is often the excuse used to exclude members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) from being Christian. It is well known to historians that Christian doctrine changed over time and across different Christian groups.
The bible is then viewed through the lens of these creeds causing certain interpretations to be favored and other biblical teachings to be minimized or ignored. Interestingly, if you look at the doctrines of the early church fathers before the creeds, they are very Mormon-like. In a number of doctrinal areas the early Christians were good Mormons and would be rejected as non-Christian by many Christians of today.
In many areas of belief (probably the majority of areas) Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) believe the same as most other Christians. It is true that in some limited areas – some very critical ones – the beliefs of Mormons differ from other Christians. Likewise there are some major areas of difference between Catholics and Protestants and likewise between one Protestant group and the next. Every denomination could make the claim that the other groups are not Christian because those other beliefs differ from their own.
The central belief of Mormons is that Christ came into the world as the Son of God. He healed the sick, caused the lame to walk, the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and restored life to the dead. He commissioned twelve Apostles to whom he gave authority. He suffered in Gethsemane, died on the cross, and was resurrected and will come again. He, and only He, provides the means for us to be washed clean in his blood from our sins, which sins we can never correct on our own or through our own works. If that is not Christian I don’t know what is. Christ never taught the need to believe in anything like the creeds. Those came later.
Mormon belief is very much like the teachings of the earlier Christians – before the creeds – and also matches the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. The further back in time you go the more Mormon-like Christian doctrine becomes. More on this later. Mormons are often portrayed as non-Christian when we don’t believe in the later extra-Biblical creedal formulations.
The early Christians did not have the extra-Biblical creeds of later centuries. Were they then not Christian? The ontological debates and the wording formations of later centuries are not found in the words of Jesus or the words of the Apostles or in the words of the pre-creedal Christians . There is not a word about a one substance god in the Bible or in the early beliefs. If believing in the creeds is necessary to be Christian then that makes the earlier Christians not Christian – it even makes Christ not Christian.
One other interesting aspect of this topic: Some Christians claim that we must get our beliefs and doctrines from the Bible only. It is claimed that God finished his work and no longer has prophets or gives revelation. They say the Mormons are wrong to have prophets and extra scripture. Consider this: If the Bible is sufficient and no post-Biblical revelation is allowed, then the post-Biblical creeds are not necessary and are not authorized by God. If God authorized the creeds then why aren’t they in the Bible? How could they be from God if the Bible is complete, if God has finished his work, and if there is no more revelation? They are extra-Biblical and no one should be held to them as a requirement to be Christian. It is so ironic that Mormons are criticized for having extra-Biblical revelation by people who themselves believe in extra-Biblical creeds. Once one puts on the glasses of the creeds then everything in the Bible is filtered to match the creeds.
Mormons believe in original Christianity restored to the earth through revelation to new prophets. This restoration was necessary BECAUSE of a changing Christianity as exemplified by the creeds and warned against by Paul in Galations chapter 1. Nowhere does the Bible say that God has finished his work, that the cannon of scripture is closed. It seems ironic to us that we Mormons are accused of adding to the Bible by people who have done just that – added creeds and metaphysical definitions to the Bible. Mormons believe original Christianity with the added benefit of current revelation from Christ. Since God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, then, of course, He will continue to give revelation to prophets just as he has always done so long as the people will receive it.
To Sandrich Re: "Why would a church hold so much commercial property in it's "portfolio?" Is a shopping center "God's work?" Give us a break and start taxing the churches."
No tithing or donation money is being used for construction of City Creek Center. The entire project is being financed through the church's commercial real estate arm, Property Reserve, Inc. Any property of the Church that is not directly used for worship is taxed the same as any other entity would be.
How does the Church decide where to spend money?
Some have insisted that funds would be better if directed to charitable works such as feeding the poor. The Church does have an extensive humanitarian effort. Critics on this point often overlook the fact that Church funds are best managed not by sitting in a bank account, but through prudent investment. Investment in land and real estate development is often a wise and ultimately profitable investment approach.
It is entirely possible that the City Creek Center Mall will eventually become a money making venture, as the Church collects rent from mall merchants. This investment strategy would allow the Church to, over time, recoup its initial outlay or even make money that could be further dedicated to the Church's religious and humanitarian goals.
Critics also overlook the fact that if money is spent to feed the needy, that money is gone. On the other hand, if the Church reinvests in Salt Lake City's downtown core, this provides jobs and economic stimulus (for example, via construction and then the service-industry jobs which will fill the mall upon its completion). While providing fewer short term gains, this long term "teach a man to fish" strategy could ultimately benefit many more people, by allowing them to "help themselves." Presiding Bishop H. David Burton noted:
The church expects wars and natural disasters before Christ returns to Earth in the Second Coming, and members are encouraged to prepare by laying in stores of food. Farms and ranches are part of the church's own preparation.
"The church teaches its members to live within their means and put a little money aside for life's unexpected events. As a church, we live by the same principle," Purdy said. The rainy-day fund and operating budget rarely mix, officials say.
"The funds are used to build and maintain temples and meeting houses, as well as take care of the many expenses associated with helping the work of the Gospel of Jesus Christ roll forth. I love to pay tithing," Carl Ames said on one church site.
Purdy did offer a list of spending priorities: building houses of worship, supporting Brigham Young University and a seminary system, operating nearly 140 temples and the world's largest genealogy research program, and humanitarian aid for both members and non-members.
Since 1985 the church has spent a total of $1.4 billion on relief for disasters such as Japan's earthquake and Ethiopian famine, and it operates 129 "bishops' storehouses" with food and household items for the needy.
To Layton Re: "Mormon religion is VERY patriarchial and the women know it. They are very well aware that they can only get to their "celestial kingdom" if their "sealed" mate calls them by their special temple-given name when he arrives at their whatever colored gates."
You don't seem to be aware of the fact that in Mormon believe men are equally dependent on their wives to get into the gates. They are equals and neither can enter without the other.
Mormon doctrine is women-friendly. Mormonism rejects the post-Biblical Augustinian doctrine of original sin, which held that humanity inherits the sin of Adam and Eve in which they ate the forbidden fruit. This sin was historically blamed on Eve, and was thought to be the source of women's submissive and dependent state and many Christian denominations use this as a basis for making women subservient to men. Not so in Mormonism. Mormonism rejects this doctrine of original sin which relegates women to an inferior position and which is a post-Biblical doctrinal development.
In 1842 (when women were usually constrained to home and hearth), Joseph Smith encouraged the women of the church to form their own organization, and said the church could not be correct until the women were organized. Women have always had a say and a vote in church affairs. The first women to vote in municipal elections were women in Mormon settlements, and women voted in Utah Territory until the Federal government disenfranchised them in 1887. Advanced education for women has always been encouraged. Some of the best formative writing about our faith sprang from the pens of erudite and educated women, such as Eliza R. Snow and Emmeline B. Wells. Brigham Young and other early leaders not only encouraged university education for women, but sent their own daughters to eastern universities. The assumption that Mormon women are subservient lacks factual foundation.
In his counsel to the bretheren of the Latter-day Saint Church, Brigham Young (the 2nd President of the church) said the following," Bretheren if you must choose beetween educating your son and educating your daughter--Educate your daughters for it is they who will raise up the next generation. You sons can earn their way through the toil of their hands." (late 1800's).
Brigham Young, President of the LDS Church, also taught: "As I have often told my sisters in the Female Relief Societies, we have sisters here who, if they had the privilege of studying, would make just as good mathematicians or accountants as any man; and we think they ought to have the privilege to study these branches of knowledge that they may develop the powers with which they are endowed. We believe that women are useful not only to sweep houses, wash dishes, make beds, and raise babies, but that they should stand behind the counter, study law or physic [medicine], or become good book-keepers and be able to do the business in any counting house, and this to enlarge their sphere of usefulness for the benefit of society at large."( Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1997, p. 135)
In 1869, Utah gave women the vote. In 1887, the federal government took the vote away from Utah women (Edmunds-Tucker Act)
Below is a typical example of what I have consistently been taught all my life (over 50 years) as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:
Speaking of men in the church Gordon B. Hinkley said taught the following (from July 2002 Ensign Magazine)
“Section 121 goes on to say: “No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
“By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile” (D&C 121:41–42).
“Our behavior in public must be above reproach. Our behavior in private is even more important. It must clear the standard set by the Lord. We cannot indulge in sin, let alone try to cover our sins. We cannot gratify our pride. We cannot partake of the vanity of unrighteous ambition. We cannot exercise control, or dominion, or compulsion upon our wives or children, or any others in any degree of unrighteousness.
“The wife you choose will be your equal. Paul declared, “Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:11).
“In the marriage companionship there is neither inferiority nor superiority. The woman does not walk ahead of the man; neither does the man walk ahead of the woman. They walk side by side as a son and daughter of God on an eternal journey.
“She is not your servant, your chattel, nor anything of the kind.
“How tragic and utterly disgusting a phenomenon is wife abuse. Any man in this Church who abuses his wife, who demeans her, who insults her, who exercises unrighteous dominion over her is unworthy to hold the priesthood. Though he may have been ordained, the heavens will withdraw, the Spirit of the Lord will be grieved, and it will be amen to the authority of the priesthood of that man.
“Any man who engages in this practice is unworthy to hold a temple recommend.
“I regret to say that I see too much of this ugly phenomenon. There are men who cuff their wives about, both verbally and physically. What a tragedy when a man demeans the mother of his children.
“My brethren, if there be any within the sound of my voice who are guilty of such behavior, I call upon you to repent. Get on your knees and ask the Lord to forgive you. Pray to Him for the power to control your tongue and your heavy hand. Ask for the forgiveness of your wife and your children.” (Gordon B. Hinkley, Ensign, July 2002)
To Kentn McMillen Re: "I wondered why this article didn't mention the $48 million the Mormon Church spent defeating Prop. 8, in California?"
The value of the Church’s in-kind (non-monetary) contribution is less than one half of one percent of the total funds (approximately $40 million) raised for the “Yes on 8” campaign. The Church did not make any cash contribution other than an overlooked $5,539.
Prop 8 was placed on the California ballot by Californians who submitted 1,120,801 signatures. They only needed 694,354. The LDS church was not involved in placing the measure on the ballot. (Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election (PDF). California Secretary of State.)
After the measure was placed on the ballot the LDS church was approached in June 2008 by letter from San Franciso Catthoilic Archbishop George Niederaurer to join a coalition of religions to promote the proposition. (Matthai Kuruvila, "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8", San Francisco Chronicle (Nov. 10, 2008))
The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints
Records filed with the State of California indicate that the Church did not make any contributions with the exception of an "in kind" contribution (non monetary) for some travel expenses and an overlooked $5,539.- a minuscule amount compared to the nearly $40,000,000 donated in support of Prop 8. All other LDS-related money was contributed by Church members individually, not by the Church.
Contributions to defeat Prop 8 were higher than those supporting it – yet it passed anyway. Most Latter-day Saints who contributed money were Californians. In-state donations in favor were $25,388,955. In-state donations against were $26,464,589. Out-of-state donations in favor were $10,733,582 and out of state against were $11,968,285. (Tracking the Money, Los Angeles Times)
Estimates of monies donated to the "Yes on 8" campaign by LDS Church members, range from $14 to $20 million. No firm figures are available because the State of California does not request or record the religion of donors.
Almost all monetary donations came from individual Church members, who decided if and how much they would contribute. The Church did, however, make several in-kind donations, as reported by the California Secretary of State's website (last accessed January 31, 2009). There are a number of donations by the Church in the report, all non-monetary:
Contributions may be verified in the California Secretary of State California Filings Searchable Database, although the Church has pointed out that not all contributions have yet been entered in the database by the State of California.
The term "in-kind" represents donations that are made to the Church in some form other than cash (For example, the payment of tithing using stock constitutes an in-kind donation). In this case, the in-kind donations were to cover out-of-pocket expenses. The Church declared these donations, as required by law, and they are part of the public record.
Some news outlets reported on January 30 the Church's final contribution report as $180,000 (Jessica Garrison, Mormon church reports spending $180,000 on Proposition 8, Los Angeles Times (Jan. 30, 2009).) or $190,000 (John Wildermuth, Mormon church reports $190,000 Prop. 8 expenses, San Francisco Chronicle (Jan. 31, 2009).) Speculation regarding the reason for this last filing prompted the Church to issue a press release:
On Friday, 30 January, the Church filed the final report of its contributions (all of which were non-monetary) to the ProtectMarriage.com coalition. The report, submitted in advance of the 31 January deadline, details in-kind donations totaling $189,903.58.
The value of the Church’s in-kind (non-monetary) contribution is less than one half of one percent of the total funds (approximately $40 million) raised for the “Yes on 8” campaign. The Church at the time believed that all contributions were non-cash, or in-kind contributions. It is my understanding that cash contributions of $36,928 were later discovered to have been by the Church and were unintentionally reported late resulting in a fine of $5,539. (How many well intentioned people have been fined by the IRS for making an honest mistake on their tax return?)
Prop 8 passed 52% to 48% or 7,001,084 to 6,401,482. Latter-day Saints constitute less than 2% of the population of California and less than 5% of the yes vote. There are about 800,000 LDS in California out of about 34 million California residents.
Other groups played a major role in the bill’s passage:
Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment.
White evangelicals going 81-19.
The net African-American vote (70-30) accounts a large part of the victory margin..
The net Latino vote at 53-47 contributed another 25% to the victory margin.
Senior citizens supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 opposed it 39-61.
To George Ann Re: "Morons have a strange belief.They believe in different level to work your way to becoming a god when the Die"
That would be Mormons not Morons, or are you deliberately trying to be insulting or perhaps funny?
Dependence on the grace of Jesus Christ is one of the central beliefs of Mormons. It is the critics of Mormonism who say that Mormons believe they are going to earn their way to heaven by their works. Mormon’s don’t teach that and it is a straw man argument invented by anti-Mormons. Mormons don’t teach that we can earn our way to heaven without the grace of Christ. You see, the critics are so determined to make Mormonism look non-Biblical that they have to invent straw-man Mormon doctrines.
Note what Mormons believe taken from their own sources:
Alma 22:14 (from the Book of Mormon)
14 And since man had fallen he could not merit anything of himself; but the sufferings and death of Christ atone for their sins, through faith and repentance, and so forth; and that he breaketh the bands of death, that the grave shall have no victory, and that the sting of death should be swallowed up in the hopes of glory; and Aaron did expound all these things unto the king.
2 Nephi 25:23 (from the Book of Mormon)
23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.
2 Nephi 24:26 (from the Book of Mormon)
"We talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins." (2 Nephi 25:26)
2 Nephi 10:24-25 (From the Book of Mormon):
24 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved.
25 Wherefore, may God raise you from death by the power of the resurrection, and also from everlasting death by the power of the atonement, that ye may be received into the eternal kingdom of God, that ye may praise him through grace divine. Amen.
In the Bible we find both the teaching of salvation by Grace and the teaching of repentance and obedience to the commandments. They are both true. They are both Biblical. Some Christians cherry pick the teachings of the Bible, focusing on one thing that they like and ignore the other parts. Mormons believe ALL of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We try our best to understand and believe all of it. Grace and Works are two sides to the same coin. The Apostle Paul writes a lot about salvation by grace. This was to combat the tenancy in many early Jews who converted to Christianity to fall back on obeying the works oriented law of Moses. People who think they can work their way to salvation have missed the grace side of the coin. However, in Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, and other places, Paul also stresses the necessity to obey the commandments. He gives lists of sinful behavior such as adultery, fornication, lying, and so forth, and says that people who do these will not enter into the kingdom of heaven. For instance see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. And let's not forget about James 2:14-20,24.
The Apostle Peter tells us that even after accepting Christ one must turn from sin and obey lest he fall from grace:
2 Peter 2:20-22
20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
Peter said clearly that he was talking about people who had been evil (see prior verses) but “have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 2:20) and about people who “have known the way of righteousness.”(2 Peter 2:21). Peter says that even the angels can sin and be cast out of Heaven and down to hell (2 Peter 2:4)
Obeying God is clearly the other side of the coin to the teachings of grace in the Bible. It is incomplete to stress only Grace or only Works. They are both part of the gospel as taught in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Even confessing that Jesus is our savior is a work that we must actually do. If we were saved from sin solely on grace alone than salvation would be automatic regardless of what we do. There would be no need to even confess Jesus as our Savior let alone try to live a good Christian life.
The specific teaching “once saved always saved” is not in the Bible and must be derived by placing specific interpretation on several Bible verses. Then there’s the problem that it contradicts Peter. Jesus taught that we will abide in His love “If ye keep my commandments.” (John 15:10; see also John 14:15,21,23; See also John’s teaching: 1 John 2;3-4.).
In other words, we abide in his love (grace) after we have done our best to keep his commandments. Granted, that we cannot keep his commandments on our own, we fall short, and we desperately need His help, and His Grace, to be able to do so. And even after our best effort we fall short which means that we desperately need His Grace. We can’t earn our way to Heaven! See also John’s teaching: 1 John 2;3-4.
We read the teaching of the Savior where He lists some of the commandments we must keep to “have treasure in heaven” (Mark 10:21; Luke 18:20-22). Again, we can’t keep those commandments without His grace. We can’t do it on our own. Nevertheless, we can’t deny Jesus’ words that we must do it.
Jesus taught that whoso breaks the commandments, even “the least of these” and “teach men so” will be “the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19). Here, Jesus is saying the same thing that Mormons say, or more accurately, Mormons teach what Jesus taught. Mormons are following the teaching of Jesus concerning keeping the commandments when we “do and teach them.” Those are the words of Jesus: “do and teach them.”
Mormons are often accused of ignoring Christ’s grace and of trying to work their way to salvation. However, an accurate look at what Mormons actually teach shows a very balanced approach which mirrors the balanced teaching of Grace and Works found in the Bible.
One Evangelical Christian author wrote of his sudden discovery that his previous beliefs about salvation were very different from those held by the early Christians:
“If there's any single doctrine that we would expect to find the faithful associates of the apostles teaching, it's the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. After all, that is the cornerstone doctrine of the Reformation. In fact, we frequently say that persons who don't hold to this doctrine aren't really Christians…
“Our problem is that Augustine, Luther, and other Western theologians have convinced us that there's an irreconcilable conflict between salvation based on grace and salvation conditioned on works or obedience. They have used a fallacious form of argumentation known as the "false dilemma," by asserting that there are only two possibilities regarding salvation: it's either (1) a gift from God or (2) it's something we earn by our works.
The early Christians [and Latter-day Saints!] would have replied that a gift is no less a gift simply because it's conditioned on obedience....
“The early Christians believed that salvation is a gift from God but that God gives His gift to whomever He chooses. And He chooses to give it to those who love and obey him.” (David W. Bercot, Will The Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today's Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity, 3rd edition, (Tyler, Texas: Scroll Publishing Company, 1999[1989]), 57, 61–62)
To George Ann Re: "The also believe Jesus and Satan are brothers"
In an electronic search of 1,000 LDS church books and Scriptures, the phrase Jesus and Satan are brothers appears nowhere.
First, we believe that ALL people are sons and daughters of God - an entirely Biblical concept. One of the most prevalent doctrines of the Bible is that we are the offspring of God and that we can become more like him.
In December 2007 the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) issued the following press release on this issue:
“Like other Christians, we believe Jesus is the divine Son of God. Satan is a fallen angel. As the Apostle Paul wrote, God is the Father of all. That means that all beings were created by God and are His spirit children. Christ, however, was the only begotten in the flesh, and we worship Him as the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "Answering Media Questions About Jesus and Satan," Press release (12 December 2007))
LDS doctrine does not subscribe to the extra-Biblical creedal doctrine of the trinity. LDS do not hold to the metaphysical definitions imposed upon Christianity that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are "of one substance (homoousios) with the Father," as the Nicene Creed declares.
Rather, LDS doctrine is original Christina doctrine: that God the Father is physically and personally distinct from Jesus Christ, His Only Begotten Son. The Father is understood to be the literal father of His spirit children. Most Christians would agree that God is the creator and everything else that exists are his creations as the Apostle John taught (John 1:3 see also Col. 1:16 & Rev. 4:11) Since Christ is the Son of God and since all of mankind are also referred to as God’s offspring (Acts 17:29; Romans 8:16) and Jesus said we have a common Father with Him (John 20:17) then it is technically true to say that Jesus and Satan are "brothers," in the sense that both have the same spiritual parent, or creator, God the Father.
"We are the offspring of God." (Acts 17:28,29)
"Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the father of spirits and live?" (Heb. 12:9)
Speaking of the council in Heaven before the world was Job says: "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord..." (Job 1:16)
"When the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy." (Job 38:4-7)
Since God created all things and all creatures, then Lucifer or Satan is one of His creations and therefore, in a sense a fellow creature to us all and a brother.
Romans 8:29 says that Christ was appointed beforehand (KJV uses "predestined") to "be the firstborn among many brethren."
Jesus said that he had brothers (brethren) and that we have a common father: “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say say unto them, I ascend to my Father and your Father (John 20:17)
From these, and many other passages, we learn that we are the offspring of God. (see also Rom. 8:29; Heb. 2:11) Here, Christ acknowledges that other mortal men are his brothers and that together with Christ we have a common father. This doctrine is taught in the Bible and in early Christian teachings
Romans 8:29 says that Christ was appointed beforehand (KJV uses "predestined") to "be the firstborn among many brethren."
Isaiah 14:12 tells us that Lucifer was a son: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! (How) art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"
Jesus said that he had brothers (brethren) and that we have a common father: “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (John 20:17)
Since God created all things and all creatures, then Lucifer or Satan is one of His creations and therefore, in a sence a fellow creature to us all and a brother.
Revelation 12:7-9: "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."
Cain and Able were brothers, and yet no Bible believer would say that they are spiritual equals. Mother Teresa and Hitler are siblings, both being children of God, yet no one would say that they are equivalent. The scriptures teach the superiority of Jesus over the devil. Michael and Lucifer (Satan) fought against each other (Revelations 12:7-8)
The early Christians teach a doctrine very similar to LDS Belief. The early Ante-Nicene Church father Lactantius wrote
Since God was possessed of the greatest foresight for planning, and of the greatest skill for carrying out in action, before He commenced this business of the world,--inasmuch as there was in Him, and always is, the fountain of full and most complete goodness,--in order that goodness might spring as a stream from Him, and might flow forth afar, He produced a Spirit like to Himself, who might be endowed with the perfections of God the Father... Then He made another being, in whom the disposition of the divine origin did not remain. Therefore he was infected with his own envy as with poison, and passed from good to evil; and at his own will, which had been given to him by God unfettered, he acquired for himself a contrary name. From which it appears that the source of all evils is envy. For he envied his predecessor, who through his steadfastness is acceptable and dear to God the Father. This being, who from good became evil by his own act, is called by the Greeks diabolus: we call him accuser, because he reports to God the faults to which he himself entices us. God, therefore, when He began the fabric of the world, set over the whole work that first and greatest Son, and used Him at the same time as a counselor and artificer, in planning, arranging, and accomplishing, since He is complete both in knowledge, and judgment, and power. (Lactantius, Divine Institutes 2.9. in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 10 vols. (1885; reprint, Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004), 7:52–53.)
Here, Lactantius, considered an Orthodox Christian in his time, teaches that God “produced a Spirit like to Himself” who is Jesus and “then He made another being, in whom the disposition of the divine origin did not remain” who was Satan. Lactantius has Jesus and Satan as brothers. Were the early Christians of Lactantius’s time then, not Christian?
Many things Lactantius here taught are not considered "orthodox" by today's standards. However, Lactantius was definitely orthodox during his lifetime. Amazingly, many things here correspond to LDS doctrine precisely in those areas that are "unorthodox." For example,
1) "He produced a Spirit like to Himself," namely Christ. Christ, in this sense, is not the "co-equal," "eternally begotten," "same substance" "persona" of the later creeds.
2) "Then he made another being, in whom the disposition of the divine origin did not remain." God made another spirit who rebelled and who fell from his exalted status. He is the diabolus.
3) 3. Christ is the "first and greatest Son." Not the "only" son.
4) 4. Lastly, since the diabolus and Christ are both spirit sons of God, they are spirit brothers.
To George Ann Re: "They believe that the more wealth you get on earth the higher your level."
Nowhere is this taught in Mormon beliefe. You must be repeating incorrect information that you have heard. I would be more careful to check out the information before posting.
To George Ann Re: "That's why they say Romney is high level in his religion"
Actually that's almost humorous except that I get the impression that you really believe it. It is silly and not what we Mormons say at all.
Mitt Romney served as a Bishop and a Stake President in his church. These are temporary lay positions without pay. He does not currently serve in these positions and is not a spokesman for the LDS church. Even as a Bishop and later a Stake President he was not in a position to speak for the whole church or to determine Church policy.
To George Ann Re: "Could get her to realize that wasn't a Real Christian believe"
Reverand Jeffress said. "And I still maintain there are vast differences in theology between Mormons and Christians."
This seems to be a common view among many Christians and actually they are right to say that there are some major differences, although there are more similarities than differences. However, there are also vast differences between current Christianity and Early Christianity.
If Christianity means “historic orthodox mainstream Christianity” of today then I would agree that Mormonism is not historic Christianity; at least not in every doctrine. Although Mormons have much in common with other Christians Mormons also believe differently than historic Christians in some key areas. But the real questions to ask are 1) What is original Christianity? 2) Is mainstream Christianity of today the same as original Christianity? It turns out that Joseph Smith was right. Mormonism is a restoration of Original Christianity. It is not my intent to criticize Christians of today. However, with all the criticism of Mormonism it is important to notice that in many areas of belief Mormons are closer to original Christianity than are most Christians of today.
Mormons believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. Our first Article of Faith states: We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. However “Trinity’ is a word that is not found in the Bible. Nor are the definitions and wording formulations in the extra-Biblical creeds found in the Bible. In 325 AD a council of about 300 (out of 1800 serving) bishops gathered in Nicea at the request of the pagan Emperor Constantine and formulated a creed that tried to reconcile the Biblical statements that there three persons called “God” and yet there was “one” God. They then forced all Christians to accept their solution as “gospel”, with varying results. Theological debates and other councils continued to tweak the concept for centuries which produced additional creeds.
Mormons are not supposed to be Christian because we have some doctrinal differences with other Christian groups of today. The foundation for the beliefs of these other groups is the creeds of the 4th. 5th, and 6th centuries and so on.
For example; in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is a non-Biblical creed, we read that "there is but one God, a most holy spirit, without body, parts or passions," thus denying the resurrected Christ, for if Christ is not risen and we do not believe him when he tells us that he has an immortal body, we can then have no hope of a resurrection (Phil 3:21.)
Contrary to the creeds, the resurrected Jesus taught: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." (Luke 24:39)
From this passage we know that Jesus had his physical body after the resurrection. We also know that when Christ comes again, he will still have his physical body. (Zech. 14:4; 12:10; 13:6; John 20:24-28, Acts 1:9-11; Rev 1:7; 1 Cor. 15:3-8, 12-20, 35-42; D&C 93:33).
It is claimed that Mormons are wrong because they believe in extra-Biblical revelation and scripture. Yet much of Christianity believes in extra-Biblical creeds and councils formulated centuries after the time of Christ and the Apostles. Most of the wording formulations in these creeds cannot be found in the Bible. This is often the excuse used to exclude members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) from being Christian. It is well known to historians that Christian doctrine changed over time and across different Christian groups.
The Bible is then viewed through the lens of these creeds causing certain interpretations to be favored and other biblical teachings to be minimized or ignored. Interestingly, if you look at the doctrines of the early church fathers before the creeds, they are very Mormon-like. In a number of doctrinal areas the early Christians were good Mormons and would be rejected as non-Christian by many Christians of today.
In many areas of belief (probably the majority of areas) Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) believe the same as most other Christians. It is true that in some limited areas – some very critical ones – the beliefs of Mormons differ from other Christians. Likewise there are some major areas of difference between Catholics and Protestants and likewise between one Protestant group and the next. Every denomination could make the claim that the other groups are not Christian because those other beliefs differ from their own.
Joseph Smith taught “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it”. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 121).
The central belief of Mormons is that Christ came into the world as the Son of God. He healed the sick, caused the lame to walk, the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and restored life to the dead. He commissioned twelve Apostles to whom he gave authority. He suffered in Gethsemane, died on the cross, and was resurrected and will come again. He, and only He, provides the means for us to be washed clean in his blood from our sins, which sins we can never correct on our own or through our own works. If that is not Christian I don’t know what is. Christ never taught the need to believe in anything like the creeds. Those came later.
Mormon belief is very much like the teachings of the earlier Christians – before the creeds – and also matches the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. The further back in time you go the more Mormon-like Christian doctrine becomes. Mormons are often portrayed as non-Christian when we don’t believe in the later extra-Biblical creedal formulations.
The early Christians did not have the extra-Biblical creeds of later centuries. Were they then not Christian? The ontological debates and the wording formations of later centuries are not found in the words of Jesus or the words of the Apostles or in the words of the pre-creedal Christians . There is not a word about a one substance god in the Bible or in the early beliefs. If believing in the creeds is necessary to be Christian then that makes the earlier Christians not Christian – it even makes Christ not Christian.
Mormons believe in original Christianity and that it was restored to the earth through revelation to new prophets. Nowhere does the Bible say that God has finished his work, that the cannon of scripture is closed.
To George Ann Re: "the have the book of Mormon Which really goes totally different from the Bible..Look it up.."
Yes. Look it up. You should try that George Ann.
The purpose of the Book of Mormon is to testify of the Jesus Christ of the Bible as a second witness for Him. It's purpose is to support the Bible's witness of Christ. The Book of Mormon teaches the same as the Bible.
Mormon 7:9 (From the Book of Mormon):
9 For behold, this [The Book of Mormon] is written for the intent that ye may believe that [The Bible]; and if ye believe that [The Bible] ye will believe this [The Book of Mormon] also; and if ye believe this ye will know concerning your fathers, and also the marvelous works which were wrought by the power of God among them.
OK. Well let's remind you all of a couple things.
How are they the same? They are both ridiculous cult beliefs based upon unprovable mythical tales. All derived from a nonsensical bronze-age cult book called the BuyBull.
How is Mormonism different? Well, for starters, people like Romney are so goddam whack that they think the joseph smith crap is real, and that the ridiculous stories about disappearing golden plates make sense. And, more than that, they are so totally WHACK, that they TRULY BELIEVE that their cult-god cares about the Magic Underwear they're all wearing. They think that the god-who-created-the-universe really stays up at night, concerned for every Mormon Cultist, wringing his hands if any of them stop wearing their idiotic Magic Underwear.
What's the worst news? The child-like, depraved Republican Party has put one of these cult WHACKADOOs up as their nominee for President of the United States. They actually want one of these lunatic Magic Underwear Cultists leading the country from the Oval Office.
And you thought Sarah Palin was bad as a potential VP?
Just when you think the GOP can't dig down any deeper into the sludge to pull out a POS candidate, they give us Mittens and his Magic Underwear...
Have you noticed, in this election, that the republicans aren't yapping about VALUES anymore? Why do you think that is??
Because the GOP doesn't have any VALUES. They've sold their values for a dime, and placed a lunatic fringe CULT MORMON up as their candidate -- someone with his own superior Magic Underwear "values." Representing a cult that has a long sordid history of nonsense like arranged child marriages, and a lot of other whackadoo crap. VALUES? Right. They are about money, power, and Magic Underwear.
Where does the lowlife GOP come up with this sludge as their "best person for the job"???
Dwight
You have mad, wicked time on your hands, bro.
Imagine if you spent that energy on something productive, like science. Feeding the poor. Inventing things, etc.
That's really the tragedy of faith.
Not that it's based on irrational beliefs incompatible with modernity ... but because so much human potential and energy is wasted on it.
Chad, you honestly just said one of the dumbest things I have read on nbc, and that is saying a lot.
"It's quite humorous to hear the Right exclaim how much they hate the government ... oh, until it comes to religion-based tax exemption ... then they have no problem putting their sweaty hands out to grab those breaks and maneuver those loopholes. Come to think of it, who's that remind you of? Big corporations maybe?"
WTF are you talking about? When do you have to extend your hand to NOT have money taken from you. The right is for less government, so they are against government taking more tax money. If you dont steal a dollar from me, it doesnt mean I got a hand out, or took a dollar from you, it just means you got nothing from me. Your point makes ZERO logical sense. You try to make Christians seem dumb, then you come up with an illogical statement like this? At least I have friends who are atheist, so I can know that they are not all this dense.
Wow, yeah .... I mean ... I'm quite honored. I'm not sure whether to take a bow or shake your hand?
Really? Less government?
Oh, I forgot. That's the go-to talking point you guys use when a Democrat is in office.
When it's a Republican however, the size of government-growth doesn't matter in the slightest. Just like budgets and debt. Hell, as long as a Republican is in office, who gives a @!$%# if we start wars that we can't afford .... we'll just shut our mouths until a Dem gets elected and blame everything on them ... God damn socialists!!!!!
Says the guy who can't even be honest with himself, let alone a complete stranger.
Really?
Where did I mention anything about Christian intelligence?
My friend, if you're going to deposit a rant like this, you should probably understand the person's position a bit further, less you make yourself look more foolish.
Are you sure about that? You could just be the facilitator of a good laugh ... I know I've had one.
Chad, just fyi. The Mormons recently spent millions of dollars to introduce a new PR program to improve their "image". In some churches, they have actually trained church members to respond to a "call for action" when any story hits the news that can be construed as negative to "the church". It is often (not always, I am sure) organized via Facebook and email. They have scripts and canned answers. My sister is one of these... that defends her church tooth and nail... pickets "inappropriate businesses in the community" and visits her sisters in the church to let them know their skirt is too short, etc. You are not debating individuals. You are debating an organization.
Chad have you taken your meds your starting to sound like Rush.
Rush!?!?!
I can only hope ... those power riffs mixed with melodic chorus-lines are quite awesome.
$7 billion dollars going to a business that is exempt from taxation. People bitch and moan about corporations that don't pay taxes, how is this any different?
I know. The church business is a sinful disgusting one.
It just gives more evidence that con-artistry is a recession proof business.
This is a drop in the ocean compared to the Catholic Church.
So if the Mormon church were a business, and they paid what businesses were supposed to pay before the "loop holes", how much would that be?
@ Stand and Deliver
The mormon church isn't a business, it's a church. Should Obama's church have to pay taxes? Should we see what kind of charitable donations the United Church of Christ has given? They are a million members strong. Not as big as the mormon church, but just as big.
Why not go through their books like we do with the mormons? What's the difference?
@Tubal22
Indeed, they should all be taxed.
"Should Obama's church have to pay taxes?" Of COURSE!! They ALL should. And they shouldn't be allowed to make political and compaign contributions as well since they have tax exempt status.
Perhaps the most laugable statement I have read today, other then my own of course !
Bottom line is they need to pay taxes and pitch in too with the rest of us 47% or whatever it is that carry the tax burden of this country - unless they're providing like $6,900,000,000 by way of food, shelter and social services to the needy - which we all know isn't the case.
@Joe,
The "financial" difference between the income for the Catholic Church and the LDS (Mormon) Church is that the Mormon Church REQUIRES 1/10th of your AGI (as shown on Line nn on your tax return) to be given to the Church. The penalty is excommunication. The Catholic Church ASKS that you contribute at least 1/10th to all charities, including the Church. There is no penalty associated with not giving.
While the "tithe" originally was a tax to support the Church and Clergy in the Middle Ages, that definition was dropped by the mid-1800's when the Church lost the power to tax and charities independent of the Church were springing up.
It is interesting that Romney's tithe is based on his IRS income, not his actual income. Wonder what happens if God audits his returns ...... Does God recognize loopholes and offshore shell companies?
They still have to pay taxes on for-profit ventures, folks -- that stuff doesn't fall under IRS exemptions. TMYK...
All churches should pay taxes based upon the donations they receive. Something like 50% would be very appropriate.
Except for my brother and me, all of my family is Mormon - since 1853. My father was someone who was not afraid to express his beliefs about anything. He was excommunicated by the Mormon church, because he believed it is a cult, run by a bunch of morons. I agree.
@ Chris
They aren't required. I'm not LDS, but I would say a good 60% of "mormons" don't pay tithing.
Chris-749391
The "financial" difference between the income for the Catholic Church and the LDS (Mormon) Church is that the Mormon Church REQUIRES 1/10th of your AGI (as shown on Line nn on your tax return) to be given to the Church. The penalty is excommunication.
Chris, you're wrong about a couple of things. I've been a Mormon all my life and have never heard a church leader refer to AGI. They typically tell members to pay 10% of their income, and then leave it up to the members to define income. It's the honor system; leaders never ask to see tax returns or other verification of income. Also, the penalty is not excommunication. That is completely false.
Tubal...you HAVE to tithe in order to get a Temple recommend. A full 10% they even have a "settlement report" at the end of the year! yeah it IS required to be a Mormon in good standing! Hey if you dont pay them you can not get to the Celestial Kingdom...but you know that already dont you!!
Mormon owned business from exmormon.org:
Deseret Management Corporation - http://www.deseretmanagement.com/
Beneficial Financial
Group - http://www.beneficialfinancialgroup.com/
Bonneville
International - http://www.bonnint.com/
Bonneville Communications - http://www.bonneville.com/
Bonneville Interactive
Services
Bonneville Satellite - http://www.bonnevillesatellite.com/
35 Radio Stations
1
Television Station (KSL)
Deseret Book - http://deseretbook.com/
Excel Entertainment - http://www.xelent.com/
Deseret Morning News - http://deseretnews.com/dn
Hawaii Reserves - http://www.hawaiireserves.com/
Polynesian Cultural Center
(PCC) - http://www.polynesia.com/ and http://www.polynesia.co.jp/
La'ie Shopping Center
La'ie
Park
La'ie Cemetary
Hukilau Beach Park
La'ie Water Company
La'ie
Treatment Works (sewer)
Mstar.net - http://www.mstar.net/preportal/index.asp
Temple Square
Hospitality - http://www.htsc.net/ and http://www.hoteltsc.com/
Weddings (JSMB and Lion
House)
The Inn at Temple Square - http://www.diningattemplesquare.com/
Lion House Pantry - http://www.diningattemplesquare.com/
The Roof Restaurant -
http://www.diningattemplesquare.com/
The Garden Restaurant
- http://www.diningattemplesquare.com/
Passages Restaurant -
http://www.diningattemplesquare.com/
Zions Securities
Corporation - http://www.zsc.com/
Farm Management Corporation
(commericial farms and agricultural properties)
Deseret Land and
Livestock
200,000 acres of land in Rich, Morgan and Weber counties
(Utah)
Sun Ranch (Martin's Cove)
Deseret Ranches of Florida (Orlando)
(largest ranch in Florida)
Deseret Farms of California
Rolling Hills
(Idaho)
West Hills Orchards (Elberta, Utah)
Cactus Lane Ranch
(Arizona)
(more)
Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (CPB)
Corporation of the President of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Deseret Trust Company
LDS
Family Services
Property Reserves Inc. (PRI)
Ensign Peak Advisors - http://www.imno.org/articles.asp?qid=123
Deseret Mutual
Benefit Administrators (DMBA) - http://www.dmba.com/
Brigham Young University (BYU) -
http://home.byu.edu/webapp/home/index.jsp
BYU - Idaho - http://www.byui.edu/
BYU -
Hawaii - http://www.byuh.edu/index.jsp
LDS Business College - http://www.ldsbc.edu/
You forgot my house, about to forclose, and a nice $8000 from them saves my family from loosing our home! I guess they part own it (at least in my book -not theirs) but put it on the list too!
Okay, let's take tax exemptions away from the Mormon church, any faith based organization or even the Boy Scouts but let's be "fair", take away tax exemptions from Planned Parenthood, Acorn, Friends of the Earth and all Unions too.
Planned Parenthood is a non-profit. They don't have any "left overs" to invest at the end of the tax year...unlike the example in question, the mormon organization.
I wonder how many of the businesses the LDS was given, as opposed to what the bought ?
I would also guess that many of those companies have a large portion of the profits from the business transferred to the charitable work of the LDS.
I don't have a problem with churches and NFP's not paying taxes. 90%+ use the money to help people in one way or another.
Even if you don't believe in God, those who have a spiritual life usually have a better life, i.e. they are happier, healthier, more physically fit, more mentally fit and usually wealthier.
Also, if the churches did not exist, or if they were taxed and there was no tax deduction for donations, then the services provided would likely have to be provided by government. The alternative would be the kind of breakdown in society which occurred at the end of the Roman Empire and again at the end of 18th century, which resulted in the revolts all over Europe and the chaos which followed.
I worked for a not for profit. We spent tons of money on fancy trips and resorts. Really , they should have been paying tax. Most large churches own lots of land, buildings and art. Get real. Tax due.
I remember, as a small child, visiting the Mormon church one night with some friends and watching as one of the church officials turned away a hungry Vietnam veteran who was basically crying and in tears for some food. This Mormon guy in a 3-piece suit turned him away, empty handed. Later that night, My mom and us kids went searching for him in our car with a bag of groceries, but we never did find him. Since then, I have had little respect for the Mormon Church.
Hello! You're mother was a slut.
Roosterboy, I left the Mormon chuch when I was 13. They told me that if a black joined the church, their skin would turn white. I watched on TV when the church announced a revelation from God, that blacks are God's children also and would now be allowed to join the church. It was so condescending ... and they don't get that. I was hounded and followed for 20 years. They don't let their members/potential tithers go without a fight. I have about 50 cousins on my Mother's side .... Mormons. I don't go to family reunions anymore. Can't stand them. I am surprised the article didn't mention how much they spend on PR. Tens of Millions of dollars in pro Mormon image propaganda.
http://saltlakecity.backpage.com/LegalServices/mormon-church-tries-to-resurrect-its-image-spends-millions-to-repair-prop-8-damage/2683553
They even write their own history books, for crying out loud. I have one sister I haven't spoken to in years. You just can't talk to her. She is like a Stepford wife, or something. I'm not having anymore of it. Not in my life and not in my politics.
Bewildered, this event helped shape me into becoming a proud Democrat. I will fight to my last breathe to end Republican scum like you. Henry Thinks, I am confused when it comes to Mormons. I have a love/hate thing going. I have good memories and bad. I love the people. I don't really have love for the church.
Tubla22 stated: "The mormon church isn't a business, it's a church."
If you have read the Bible, it says that a church is not built by hand of brick or stone, it is built within each of us without the use of hands.
Happy: you are sadly deceiving yourself if you believe a non-profit has no assets - planned parenthood as an organization had a value of over $1,000,000,000 dollars (that is 1 Billion dollars) in assets at the end of 2008 and that has increased to $1,300,000,000. by the end of 2011.. Did you really thik they gave it all away? Do you have any clue what the leadership at Planned Parenthood pay theselves every year in salary???? look it up - geez you folks are truly clueless.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/abortion/201833-planned-parenthood-tops-1-billion-in-assets
Ask to be removed from the rolls.
LuLu98 is right. We need to end the tax deductions for churches. Most I see have become private clubs where the recreation facilities are larger than the Church itself. They own fleets of buses. Give cash to the church called a donation, take the deduction (translation, pass off the cost of the activity to the other taxpayers) then church uses the money to take them on vacations disguised as "missions". Life centers have sport courts, Auditoriums and swimming pools. Church members fly to Caribbean islands carrying out missions. Meanwhile in their own hometowns, poor people live in dilapidated hovels, and get no christian help from the church. Shelters for the homeless get a minimum contribution so they can "claim" they do it just before traveling hundreds or thousands of miles to do mission work. Their buses are passing each other by the hundreds as they go up and down the roads to summer camps, Didney, and other vacation spots on missions. Stick the taxpayers with the bills for it. Time to cancel the Church deductions - due to lying and cheating by the church goers.
Bewildered53, you are suspended for a day for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
IReadyou
You could further from the truth about the church. There are no sports courts or swimming pools in Life Centers. Also I went on a Mission (St. Petersburg, Russia) and there was no church money spent on my travel to and fro. Oh yeah, after I returned fro my mission I went into the Military.
Fester - you may be in a church I wasn't writing about. Did you take a deduction for the money you spent on charity ? There are churches all over like I wrote about. Sorry yours doesn't have a pool. Open your eyes. But none of it matters. You went to Russia and within blocks of where you live, work or go to church are many who need help. Why travel many thousands of miles to find someone who needs help ? Show the passage in the new testiment where Christ said "walk passed the needy near you so you can travel far and help the people there". That's what you are doing, but it's not in the book. You could help more people at home with the money you waste on travel getting to a needy person far, far away. Why go that far ? You make my point. Thanks for responding. It is time to cancel the deduction for church contributions.
To Henry Thinks
Mormons don't say that Blacks would turn white if they joined the church. Also, Blacks were always allowed to join the LDS Church.
Joseph Smith, once gave his valuable horse to a black man, so the man could buy his son out of slavery. The Church sent tons of food and clothing to the earthquake victims in Haiti, a predominantly black country. They have missionaries all over the world teaching people of all races and colors. This does't sound racist to me.
In 1844, Joseph Smith ran for president with a plan to free all slaves by 1850. He was murdered 4 months into his campaign.
In Missouri, where the predominant attitude was pro-slavery, the LDS church underwent severe persecution. One of the underlying reasons was that Mormon support of freedom for black slaves was unpopular in the State of Missouri.
Scripture of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints states: “ it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:79, December 16, 1833)
Note what the Book of Mormon teaches:
2 Nephi 26:33
33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.
In 1972, Harold B. Lee cautioned:
We are having come into the Church now many people of various nationalities. We in the Church must remember that we have a history of persecution, discrimination against our civil rights, and our constitutional privileges being withheld from us. These who are members of the Church, regardless of their color, their national origin, are members of the church and kingdom of God. Some of them have told us that they are being shunned. There are snide remarks. We are withdrawing ourselves from them in some cases.
Now we must extend the hand of fellowship to men everywhere, and to all who are truly converted and who wish to join the Church and partake of the many rewarding opportunities to be found therein. We ask the Church members to strive to emulate the example of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, who gave us the new commandment that we should love one another. I wish we could remember that. (Harold B. Lee, Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1996), 384)
Gordon B. Hinckley, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) gave this teaching in priesthood session of General Conference:
“Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord.
Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?
Hinckley continues:
Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.
“Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.
Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.” (Gordon B. Hinckley, "The Need for Greater Kindness," Ensign (May 2006), 58–61)
To Henry Thinks
The value of the Church’s in-kind (non-monetary) contribution is less than one half of one percent of the total funds (approximately $40 million) raised for the “Yes on 8” campaign. The Church did not make any cash contribution other than an overlooked $5,539.
Prop 8 was placed on the California ballot by Californians who submitted 1,120,801 signatures. They only needed 694,354. The LDS church was not involved in placing the measure on the ballot. (Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election (PDF). California Secretary of State.)
After the measure was placed on the ballot the LDS church was approached in June 2008 by letter from San Franciso Catthoilic Archbishop George Niederaurer to join a coalition of religions to promote the proposition. (Matthai Kuruvila, "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8", San Francisco Chronicle (Nov. 10, 2008))
The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints
Records filed with the State of California indicate that the Church did not make any contributions with the exception of an "in kind" contribution (non monetary) for some travel expenses and an overlooked $5,539.- a minuscule amount compared to the nearly $40,000,000 donated in support of Prop 8. All other LDS-related money was contributed by Church members individually, not by the Church.
Contributions to defeat Prop 8 were higher than those supporting it – yet it passed anyway. Most Latter-day Saints who contributed money were Californians. In-state donations in favor were $25,388,955. In-state donations against were $26,464,589. Out-of-state donations in favor were $10,733,582 and out of state against were $11,968,285. (Tracking the Money, Los Angeles Times)
Estimates of monies donated to the "Yes on 8" campaign by LDS Church members, range from $14 to $20 million. No firm figures are available because the State of California does not request or record the religion of donors.
Almost all monetary donations came from individual Church members, who decided if and how much they would contribute. The Church did, however, make several in-kind donations, as reported by the California Secretary of State's website (last accessed January 31, 2009). There are a number of donations by the Church in the report, all non-monetary:
Contributions may be verified in the California Secretary of State California Filings Searchable Database, although the Church has pointed out that not all contributions have yet been entered in the database by the State of California.
The term "in-kind" represents donations that are made to the Church in some form other than cash (For example, the payment of tithing using stock constitutes an in-kind donation). In this case, the in-kind donations were to cover out-of-pocket expenses. The Church declared these donations, as required by law, and they are part of the public record.
Some news outlets reported on January 30 the Church's final contribution report as $180,000 (Jessica Garrison, Mormon church reports spending $180,000 on Proposition 8, Los Angeles Times (Jan. 30, 2009).) or $190,000 (John Wildermuth, Mormon church reports $190,000 Prop. 8 expenses, San Francisco Chronicle (Jan. 31, 2009).) Speculation regarding the reason for this last filing prompted the Church to issue a press release:
On Friday, 30 January, the Church filed the final report of its contributions (all of which were non-monetary) to the ProtectMarriage.com coalition. The report, submitted in advance of the 31 January deadline, details in-kind donations totaling $189,903.58.
The value of the Church’s in-kind (non-monetary) contribution is less than one half of one percent of the total funds (approximately $40 million) raised for the “Yes on 8” campaign. The Church at the time believed that all contributions were non-cash, or in-kind contributions. It is my understanding that cash contributions of $36,928 were later discovered to have been by the Church and were unintentionally reported late resulting in a fine of $5,539. (How many well intentioned people have been fined by the IRS for making an honest mistake on their tax return?)
Prop 8 passed 52% to 48% or 7,001,084 to 6,401,482. Latter-day Saints constitute less than 2% of the population of California and less than 5% of the yes vote. There are about 800,000 LDS in California out of about 34 million California residents.
Other groups played a major role in the bill’s passage:
Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment.
White evangelicals going 81-19.
The net African-American vote (70-30) accounts a large part of the victory margin..
The net Latino vote at 53-47 contributed another 25% to the victory margin.
Senior citizens supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 opposed it 39-61.
Rubbish! They own so many other businesses -- it's nothing but a front for trolling investment income from its members, and investing in for-profit ventures. It is all about POWER and MONEY.
And, of course, it's all about Mittens and his Magic Underwear!
If they have 'for profit' businesses (shopping malls, farms, real estate, etc.) -- then how can they be considered a tax exempt religion? Something seems awfully fishy, and the U.S. should be requiring more transparency as the other countries.
Those businesses pay tax. They are considered "non-related", and the IRS has codes that deal with them (as with any other religion). Most of them are under the umbrella company 'Deseret Management Corporation', which in the 90's (i didn't google long enough for current data) was the 4th largest tax payer in Salt Lake County.
The farms and ranches produce food for the Bishop's storehouses and food aid, they aren't "for-profit." There are canneries that process the food and then its flown all over the world. When my husband and I were struggling, we were able to get assistance from one of the storehouses. They feed my family for two months until we got back on our feet.
As for the other "businesses" like KSL (an NBC affiliate) and Deseret News, there are a lot of people here that don't like those types of investments. I don't think a Church should have for-profit enterprises.
I have read everything in the comment section here and have been AMAZED at how so many people are willing to show their COMPLETE and TOTAL ignorance on a subject!! There are a few people you can see that they know what they are talking about, but they are in the distinct minority here.
Do any of you know about the employment training program seemingly associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'? Does not appear so. It is that thrift store chain called Deseret Industries. Guess what?!? It is not owned by the Church just like all of the farms, ranches and whatnots are not. In the case of Deseret Industries it is owned by the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, wholly-owned subsidary of the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which is NOT owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Church and the Corporation are two separate entities because one is a tax-exempt church and the other is a tax-paying corporation. Any for profit-parts of what this ignorant article writers is claiming to be part of the Church are in fact part of the Corporation. Do you own research and you may know a lot more truth than these alleged journalists are telling you.
No money is being hidden in the Church; monies collected by the Church pay for: the structure of the missionary program (buildings rental, purchasing vehicles for missionary activities, publishing the Holy Bible, etc), temple & meetinghouse maintainance (electricity, water, heating, restroom supplies, etc.), humantarian aid (the value in the article was only the cash expended in response to disasters, does not count clothing, cleaning supplies, wheelchairs, fresh water wells, vaccines provided, etc. donated in kind to folks), fast offerings (monies provided to persons, member and non-member alike, to provide specific basic services like housing, utilities, etc.) and the Perpetual Education Fund (provides low interest loans to young people in developing countries so that they can get advanced training in order to acquire well-paid employment). After you get done with all that, the monies collected have been expended. There is no hidden luxurious apartments, no seven-or more-course banquets privately being feasted at, or any other abusive practises. It is just a religious organization helping the family of man any way it reasonably can.
Now, how do I know this information to be true? I am a practising member of the Church who has bothered to be educated on how my donations are being spent. Furthermore, I was a trainer for four years at a Deseret Industries just a few years ago therefore I worked for the Corporation. I pay attention to what goes on around me and I bother to know what is going on as well.
Douglas: thank you. I's sure the LDS, like any Christian organization, obtains the funds it needs from its members and others and grants to those who have needs. While it always feels like there are more who have needs than funds available, whenever someone is in need, what they need is always available.
Keep up the faith and the good work.
@DouglasJP,
Good post on the LDS finbances. Now explain that whole thing about why Indians are brown and no longer speak Aramaic/Hebrew ......... Or why god lives on Kolob with his wife and kids. Does he commute? And tell us what Romney won't --- is it boxers or briefs?
Chris, your are an interesting fellow; a bit mis-guided, but still interesting.
Chris, which wisdom teeth have you had pulled?
What did you eat for breakfast last Thursday?
Why did you pick the job you work?
Where did you go on your last day off?
How did you into your latest hobby?
When did you decide faith was unimportant in your life?
Seriously Chris, some folks might be quite interested in the answers to these rather frivolous questions or not so frivolous in the case of the last one, but does it make them all important really? Whether or not the Indians have coloured skin or what language they speak, or whether God is hopefully side-by-side you in this life of challenges or what type of undergarments Mr. Romney wears, are you actually bothering to ask the important ones. One of the questions you asked was a light-minded version of an important one, but seriously Chris, what do you really need to be asking?
Are you actually bothering to ask the questions that have eternal significance Chris? Or are you just trying to pull good folks down into the gutter as well?
When you have questions to ask that are significant such as, "Who am I?", "Where am I going?", What is this life really about?", "Which faith has the power unto salvation?", "When will I bother finding myself and saving me?" & "How do I go about doing any of this?", then you are on the track to making yourself a better person.
And Chris, when you are ready to ask the REAL questions, there are many people in your local area quite willing to give you the answers in person. Just go to lds.org to get them to come to you.
Just curious, where was your God when those people were being murdered at a movie theater in Aurora Colorado.
Shouldn't you be asking that question? Maybe God didn't care. Maybe God wanted them all to die because they were all sinners? Maybe it was Satan at work, and Satan is just more powerful than your God.
I'm not entirely sure why you guys choose to worship a God who happily watches millions of children suffer and die every year when he could snap his fingers and stop the suffering, but doesn't care. Makes me wonder about his followers.
Yea those dirty Mormons we should pass a law we will call it the Mormon Extermination Order
they should be killed or driven from the states mmmm maybe that is where Hitler got the idea for the Jews all well i bet the Germans where never mad about the jews making to much money.
we should all be free less you believe in God then your crazy and should be taxed outlawed and put in jails till your not crazy anymore cuz only people who make bad choices and live off the government should be free RIGHT?
realworldprogressive...
God provides us all with free will, not to provide us with blanket protection from others while we live on this planet.
BTW - what is your excuse for not going out in the world to save all the children you can? I guess being a real world progressive just means let someone else do it, right?
"It’s an incredible con job when you think about it, to believe something now in exchange for something after death. Even corporations with their reward systems don’t try to make it posthumous."
-Gloria Steinem
@DouglasJB
Your comments litter this feed, instead of sitting in front of your computer defending your religion against people that have no impact on your beliefs or life, go out and help a few. My family has sent over 50 women to college this year out of our own pockets (not tax exempt) to do good for society, we do not believe organized religion, but in helping others REGARDLESS of their beliefs - if there truly is a God as you believe, he will see through your petty lifestyle choice and see what you have truly done to help others and uphold good morals; go smack that bible against your head a few more times, it is clearly helping those in need.
Vegas are you truly that out of touch or are you one more example of our failed education system in the United States??? A Church as any other non-profit tax exempt organization can also have business interests that are taxed as a business enterprise. There are 38,000 so called Charities in the United States each is claiming tax exempt status.
Now add in 38,000 tax exempt charities plus 53% of Americans that pay no Federal Income tax,add in a Democratic controlled government that has never balanced a budget in the 20th century and you have found the core issues of our debt crisis in this country.
RealWorld: In answer to your very stupid question GOD does not control the actions of individuals. if you knew anything about religion then you should know that GOD permits each person free will. GOD judges you on how you chose to execute your free will. Asking where GOD was when those people were murdered is as senseless as blaming you for not being there to stop those murders or should we have you charged as an accomplice since you failed to act to prevent those murders?
@RWP: Who are you that you can say that God was happy with what happened in Aurora?!? How blasphemous can you get?!? In this life we act upon each other and are responsible for those actions. Sometimes the good must suffer so that the evil will get a just judgement in the end. Life is not fair, but it is just in the end.
If God did away with our agency RWP by snapping His fingers as you put it, then what growth do we get while here on Earth? Doing things like snapping His fingers could have worse consequences for us in the long run.
Yes, He allows Satan to act here upon the Earth. Satan and his angels are part of our growing experience here. Yes, evil is real and is here for our benefit and learning.
Seriously RWP, you need to let go of your dearly-held despair and have some faith.
@Snakea: You evidently know some history. I have been told by multiple Missourians that Executive Order 44 is the lowest part of Missouri history and the only thing that has ever made them ashamed for being from the "Show-Me" state. These days something like that would not have been tolerated by most citizens of all the States. Fast way to be dumped out of the Governor's Mansion.
I did not get your last paragraph - too poor grammar - sorry.
@J.Banks: Did your postings here really take that long?
Bravo for you and your family. Goody for you in fact. Now you have your reward just like the rich man who made such a momentous procession to the temple to give his offering. Me, I prefer the Widow's way so I will NOT toot my horn about what I do every week for others.
And yes, J.Banks, I count my blessings every time I deal with folks like you that there is a just God and that He can truly see all of what I and my family and my congregation and my world-wide fellowship of faith in the Gospel do for good and bad folks around the world every day of every week of every year down through the decades and the centuries. The Final Judgement is the only true just results one can hope for.
Then it's not really evil, is it?
polytissiuns are afraid and the gubmint employees don't care because they have the paycheck for life deal. IT's not going to change unless the voters make a big deal of it. Odds are slim because tomorrow the news will report the American Idol contest and everyone on this forum will forget this subject.
@Puck42: Huh?!? Evil is evil. "Evil is not evil" - Are you insane?
Ahh DouglasJB. Thank you for being the shining example of the type of person that makes me feel ashamed for being a member of the LDS faith. Your method of discussion does nothing but foster hate and discontent towards the LDS beliefs. While I respect your desire to "stand for your faith", you do it in such a manner that is argumentative and disruptive. J.Banks pretty much pegged you. He was not tooting his own horn, or trying to receive praise from you or any other man. He was showing how he lives his life in a manner that is Christ-like. In a way, JBanks "threw his perls before swine."
Back to your initial tirade into this thread, the article clearly points out that no person within the LDS church understands the complete financial picture. These are comments by high ranking members of the LDS faith. Your knowledge of how and where the LDS church spends its money is meager at best. To start an argument based solely off your knowledge of a single piece of a 5000 piece puzzle is laughable. Your attemot to force someone to "ask important questions" is insulting. If you wish to defend our faith, please learn to do it in a way that doesn't turn away thousands in the vain attempt to rebuke one.
To Chris-749391
Linguistic experts continue to find indications of Hebrew and Egyptian influence in the Americas. The Book of Mormon specifically states that the Reformed Egyptian was a result of modifications the Nephites made to their language and was unique to them. “Reformed” is used as an adjective in the Book of Mormon, not a Noun. “Reformed Egyptian” is not the name of the language the Book of Mormon peoples used; rather, it is a description of the language they used . We don't expect it to be known in other places in the world or to the scholars as a title of a known language.
Recent scholarly research suggests a possible link between Uto-Aztecan (a family of about 30 Native American languages) and Hebrew. For example, Brian Stubbs, a leading scholar on the Uto-Aztecan language family, argues for numerous parallels between Hebrew and Uto-Aztecan. Stubbs has shown that languages of that group show major similarities with Hebrew and Egyptian.
Brian Stubbs, a leading scholar on the Uto-Aztecan language family, has shown that languages of that group show major similarities with Hebrew and Egyptian. He did so preliminarily in A Few Hundred Hints of Egyptian and Two Dialects of Hebrew (or Northwest Semitic) in Uto-Aztecan, a 142-page manuscript, 2004; it is presently in revision as a book, More on Uto-Aztecan. (See earlier treatments in Brian D. Stubbs, “Looking Over vs. Overlooking Native American Languages: Let’s Void the Void,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5/1 (1996): 1–49; “Elements of Hebrew in Uto-Aztecan: A Summary of the Data” (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1988); and “Hebrew and Uto-Aztecan: Possible Linguistic Connections,” in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, ed. John W. Welch (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1992), 279–81.)
Stubbs concludes that the Uto-Aztecan family developed as a creole tongue formed from Hebrew, Egyptian, and a native ancestral language of central Mexico that then divided multiple times. Some, but not all, other Mesoamerican tongues show similar characteristics.
As a professional linguist, Dr. Stubbs avoids the pitfalls of amateurs who simply point at similar words between two different languages. As he points out,
Any two languages can have a few similar words by pure chance. What is called the comparative method is the linguist's tool for eliminating chance similarities and determining with confidence whether two languages are historically—that is, genetically—related. This method consists of testing for three criteria. First, consistent sound correspondences must be established, for linguists have found that sounds change in consistent patterns in related languages; for example, German tag and English day are cognates (related words), as well as German tür and English door. So one rule about sound change in this case is that German initial t corresponds to English initial d. Some general rules of sound change that occur in family after family help the linguist feel more confident about reconstructing original forms from the descendant words or cognates, although a certain amount of guesswork is always involved.
Second, related languages show parallels in specific structures of grammar and morphology, that is, in rules that govern sentence and word formation.
Third, a sizable lexicon (vocabulary list) should demonstrate these sound correspondences and grammatical parallels.
When consistent parallels of these sorts are extensively demonstrated, we can be confident that there was a sister-sister connection between the two tongues at some earlier time.
A few of Stubbs' many examples are below showing on the left the Hebrew word and it's meaning and on the right the New World word and it's meaning. Stubbs and ather scholars have documented many more examples:
Hebrew-Semitic Uto-Aztecan
kilyah/kolyah 'kidney' - kali 'kidney'
baraq 'lightning' - berok (derived from *pïrok) 'lightning'
sekem/sikm- 'shoulder' - sikum/sïka 'shoulder'
mayim/meem 'water' - meme-t 'ocean'
These are just a few examples out or many that Stubbs gives.
Rhodes Scholar Dr. Roger Westcott, non-LDS Professor Emeritus of Anthropology and Linguistics at Drew University, has made positive comments about Dr. Stubbs' research:
Perhaps the most surprising of all Eurasian-American linguistic connections, at least in geographic terms, is that proposed by Brian Stubbs: a strong link between the Uto-Aztecan and Afro-Asiatic (or Hamito-Semitic) languages. The Uto-Aztecan languages are, or have been, spoken in western North America from Idaho to El Salvador. One would expect that, if Semites or their linguistic kinsmen from northern Africa were to reach the New World by water, their route would be trans-Atlantic. Indeed, what graphonomic evidence there is indicates exactly that: Canaanite inscriptions are found in Georgia and Tennessee as well as in Brazil; and Mediterranean coins, some Hebrew and Moroccan Arabic, are found in Kentucky as well as Venezuela [citing Cyrus Gordon].
But we must follow the evidence wherever it leads. And lexically, at least, it points to the Pacific rather than the Atlantic coast. Stubbs finds Semitic and (more rarely) Egyptian vocabulary in about 20 of 25 extant Uto-Aztecan languages. Of the word-bases in these vernaculars, he finds about 40 percent to be derivable from nearly 500 triliteral Semitic stems. Despite this striking proportion, however, he does not regard Uto-Aztecan as a branch of Semitic or Afro-Asiatic. Indeed, he treats Uto-Aztecan Semitisms as borrowings. But, because these borrowings are at once so numerous and so well "nativized," he prefers to regard them as an example of linguistic creolization - that is, of massive lexical adaptation of one language group to another. (By way of analogy, . . . historical linguists regard the heavy importation of French vocabulary into Middle English as a process of creolization.)....
Lest skeptics should attribute these correspondences to coincidence, however, Stubbs takes care to note that there are systematic sound-shifts, analogous to those covered in Indo-European by Grimm's Law, which recur consistently in loans from Afro-Asiatic to Uto-Aztecan. One of these is the unvoicing of voiced stops in the more southerly receiving languages. Another is the velarization of voiced labial stops and glides in the same languages. (Roger Williams Westcott, "Early Eurasian Linguistic Links with North America," in Across Before Columbus?, edited. by Donald Y. Gilmore and Linda S. McElroy (Laconia, New Hampshire: New England Antiquities Research Association (NEARA), 1998),193–197; cited by Jeff Lindsay, "Nugget #8: Uto-Aztecan and the Book of Mormon: Linguists Provide Possible Evidence Consistent with Book of Mormon Claims," jefflindsay.com (accessed 16 September 2007)
Meanwhile, a number of other Native American languages have been shown to be connected to Old World sources, few of which had been suspected. (Bede Fahey, “Mayan: A Sino-Tibetan language? A comparative study,” Sino-Platonic Papers, no. 130 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Department of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, 2004).)
Morris Swadesh was among other linguists who feel that “it is perfectly possible that a group of people having arrived speaking a new language [in the New World] eventually was absorbed into an already established linguistic community.”( Morris Swadesh, “Linguistic Relations Across Bering Strait,” American Anthropologist 64/6 (December 1962): 1262.)
The phenomenon he describes would be like what took place with native “Toltecs” who migrated into Guatemala, where they came to dominate local populations: “Linguistic patterns of highland Guatemala suggest that Toltec influence involved no mass migration of Nahua speakers to the highlands. Only small numbers of the Toltecs must have come in contact with a well-established indigenous population, the invaders’ tongue being absorbed within the linguistic milieu of the more numerous indigenous population.” (Robert M. Carmack, “Toltec Influence on the Postclassic Culture History of Highland Guatemala,” in Archaeological Studies in Middle America, Middle American Research Institute, Publication 26, ed. E. Wyllys Andrews IV et al. (New Orleans: Tulane University, 1970), 46–92.)
After only about five hundred years, Robert Carmack found very little linguistic or cultural, let alone archaeological, evidence for their presence there as their history in the Popol Vuh reported. Yet today no Mesoamericanist scholar considers the Popol Vuh anything but a fundamental source on the native pre-Spanish culture. The Book of Mormon is in the same situation.
Charles William Johnson has also shown that Egyptian words appear in multiple New World native languages including Mayan dialects, the Southwestern United States, and the Gulf coast. These include Taino, Quechua (Runa Simi), Purépecha, and native languages in Louisiana.
The Book of Mormon continues to make a serious impression on non-LDS scholars. As early as 1966 Near Eastern scholar William F. Albright, though not a believer in the Book of Mormon, wrote a letter in response to an anti-Mormon critic, noting that Joseph Smith probably could not have learned Egyptian from scholars of his day, yet included some authentic Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon. "It is all the more surprising that there are two Egyptian names, Paanch[i] and Pahor[an] which appear in the Book of Mormon in close connection with a reference to the original language being 'Reformed Egyptian.'" (William F. Albright to Grant S. Heward, Baltimore, Maryland, July 25, 1966, as cited by Tvedtnes, 2001.)
The Book of Mormon added about 180 new words to the English language when it was published in 1830. Most of these are names of people and places. Now, many of these names have surfaced in ancient document discoveries. When the archive at Elephantine, on the upper Nile River was discovered around 1900 we learned of a group of Jews who left Jerusalem not long before the time of Lehi and settled on the upper Nile river at Elephantine. It turns out that many names and words in the Elephantine archive match and verify the authenticity of the book of Mormon names No one in Joseph Smith’s time could have fabricated those names because Elephantine had not yet been discovered in Joseph Smith’s day and yet archeological evidence discovered long after Joseph Smith’s time corroborates the Book of Mormon.
He then implied that Joseph Smith might have been some kind of "religious genius." Given today's impressive and growing list of authentic Semitic names in the Book of Mormon, it's doubtful that the "religious genius" theory can survive. Joseph Smith was not a religious Einstein--he was a largely unschooled Prophet of God.
A preliminary study was conducted by Peter Balk of the New World Archaeological Foundation through which he reported similarities of word comparisons between Hebrew and Zapotec. The study was conducted among the Zapotec people living in the town of Zaachila, which is located at the base of the hill where the ruins of Monte Alban are situated. Zaachila is also near the city of Oaxaca.
An additional hint of Hebrew culture at Monte Alban is derived from a four-horned incense burner that is on display in the Oaxaca Valley Room of the National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City. The urn dates to Monte Alban Period I, 500 BC to 100 BC, and is similar to the types of urns from Jerusalem dating to the same time period.
Writing was first discovered in Mesoamerica at Monte Alban. However, it is different from Maya writing and has not yet been interpreted.
To Chris-749391
Some critics have scoffed at finds of European, Middle Eastern, and even Jewish DNA in American Indians. They say that these are contaminations which occurred after Columbus and do not represent pre-Columbian DNA. However, they cite no evidence for this that I have seen. Certainly there was mixture of European DNA with American Indians after Columbus. However, we cannot assume that all Old World DNA found in Native Americans is due to post-Columbus admixture. DNA testing of some pre-Colombian remains yields DNA types matching Europe and even Israel.
The evidence from mitochondrial DNA, passed on by mothers only, is supplemented by evidence from Y-chromosomes, which are passed on by fathers only. Native American Y-chromosomes show a variety of haplogroups, including haplogroups 4 and 1C (Karafet et al., 1999), which are also characteristic of Jewish peoples (Hammer et al., 2000). Haplogroup 1C is common enough in the New World that it has been proposed as a major founder haplogroup for the New World. Karafet is one of the co-authors in Hammer et al. (2000), and his 1999 paper is cited.
Haplogroup X
For some time haplogroup X, found in American Indians, did not show up in Asia. This suggested a migration to the New World from somewhere other than Asia. When X was found in the Middle East and Europe it seemed to open up the possibility of migration from the Middle East.
Haplogroup X, can be traced to Europe, and is found in North American populations, said Dr Theodore Schurr of the Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research in San Antonio, Texas. Dr Schurr said: "This is one of the intriguing findings that we have come across recently. These data imply that haplogroup X was present in the New World long before Europeans first arrived in the New World, before Columbus or the Vikings or anybody else."
The find has led to speculation that ancient people crossed the Atlantic from the Old World, because evidence of the X haplogroup had not been found in Asia. Dr Schurr said: "Haplogroup X was brought to the New World by an ancient Eurasian population in a migratory event distinct from those bringing the other four lineages to the Americas."
However, a new report (Derenko, 2001) showed that haplogroup X was found in central Asia after all. This was thought to explain the X in American Indians. However, there are some problems with linking the Asian X to American Indian X.
The X DNA, found in a little pocket in central Asia called Altai, turned out to be a variant which is different from that found in the New World. X DNA in the New World contains a variant called 225A which is a major marker for the X haplogroup in American Indians (Brown et al. (1998) but it is not found in the Asian variant. The work of Reidla et al. (2003) confirms this finding. Reidla et al. state that the small pocket of haplogroup X DNA in Siberia "are more likely explained by recent gene flow from Europe or from West Asia" rather than being remnants of a group that migrated to the Americas anciently
The DNA time clock indicates that the Asian variant of X is newer that the American Indian X showing that American Indians did not get their X DNA from the Asian source. However, the 225A variant found in American Indians is also is found in the Middle East and, to some extent, in Europe. Some geneticists have shown that the most likely source of X DNA is NORTHERN ISRAEL – the very area where the tribe of Joseph lived. The Book of Mormon peoples were Josephites. The evidence still suggests that the origin of American Indian X DNA is not Asia but the Middle East (or Europe).
DNA researchers usually go out of their way to avoid any chance of post-Columbus admixture when they carry out their research. Unfortunately this means that they often reject, out-of-hand, any samples containing DNA types that match Old World DNA other than Asian. It seems to be assumed that Asian DNA is always OK but anything else must be a recent admixture. Because of this, real evidence for other migrations may be routinely rejected. Lehi, from the Book of Mormon, was from the tribe of Joseph, one of the lost ten tribes taken captive and dispersed to the north. The DNA types his party carried is unknown. The tribe of Joseph inhabited the northern part of Israel. Studies by Shlush et. Al. (The Druze: A Population Genetic Refugium of the Near East, 2008) show that the X haplogroup may have originated in the area of northern Israel (near where the tribe of Joseph resided at one time) and then spread to other parts of the earth from there. X haplogroup is found among American Indians.
Samples of American Indian DNA which match European, or Middle Eastern DNA may be the smoking gun for Lehi’s DNA but those types are always assumed to be contaminated. No doubt some are but is it scientific to assume without finding out? Even some Asian DNA may be Lehi’s DNA type. Haplogrop X is found in northern Israel and has been shown to match Native American X better than the Asian X as shown in a study by Shlush.
The haplogroup X occurs most among Algonkian-speaking groups such as the Ojibwa, and has been detected in two pre-Colombian north American populations. Today, haplogroup X is found in between two and four per cent of European populations, and in the Middle East, particularly in Israel. The complex origins of the first Americans has also been highlighted by an analysis of thousands of skulls from around the world. A team of anthropologists from the University of Michigan found that the study confirmed the complex origins of Native Americans that have been suggested by recent archeological and genetic studies. Many pre-Colombian skulls demonstrate cranial features of Europeans but not current American Indians.
According to Science Magazine: "haplogroup X was only confirmed in the genes of a smattering of living people in Europe and Asia Minor, including Italians, Finns, and certain Israelis. The team's review of published mtDNA sequences suggests that it may also be in Turks, Bulgarians, and Spaniards. Also Shlush et. Al. (The Druze: A Population Genetic Refugium of the Near East, 2008.) show that X haplogroup found in northern Israel is likely a refugium of X DNA which was more widely typical of the area in the past. The conclusion of the study includes this interesting statement: “It is thus likely that the global diversity of this haplogroup evolved in the Near East and adjacent regions of western Eurasia.”
Pre-Columbian Jewish DNA
Mitochondrial DNA studies performed on remains of ancient Mayans were from the Postclassic period of a.d. 900-1521, just prior to European colonization. [González-Oliver, 2001] These are from pre-Colombian burial sites which eliminates the problem of post-Columbus contamination. Findings include the identification of a single individual (1 out of 16) whose mitochondrial haplotype failed to correspond to any of the known Asian haplotypes.
Carvajal-Carmona et al. (2000 - available online), studied Y haplotypes of the Antioquian population of Colombia. This study found DNA alleles in Colombia that are absent or have low frequencies in European and African populations but reach high frequencies in Middle Eastern populations (Kayser et al. 1997; Thomas et al. 2000). If post-Conquest contamination took place we might expect it to come from the Spaniards who, after all, were the Conquistadores. The Colombian alleles matched Basque and Catalan populations (of Spain), at frequencies of 3.9% and 3.7%, respectively. However the alleles were found at a frequency of 16.2% in Antioquia and were also found among the Arabs, Berbers, Saharawis, and Tachelhits at frequencies of 8.9%, 0%, 10%, and 11%, respectively. This suggests some Semitic ancestry for Antioquia.
Interestingly, haplotype 4, which carries a DYS388 allele with 16 repeats, corresponds to the Cohen modal haplotype (CMH) of Thomas et al. (1998). This haplotype has frequencies >10% among Jewish populations but seems to be rare in Arab populations and has been proposed as an indicator of Jewish ancestry (Thomas et al. 2000). Two other haplotypes (12 and 29) are one mutational step away from the CMH. Haplotypes 3 and 5 also match haplotypes detected among Jewish populations; they correspond to haplotypes 2 and 27 in Thomas et al. (2000). In that survey, Antioquian haplotype 3 was observed only among Sephardic Jews. These matches occur in haplogroup C and, on aggregate, imply that ~14% of the Antioquian haplotypes could have a Jewish ancestry.
The risk of ignoring apparent outliers and the incomplete nature of the "Asia only" model for Native American origins is discussed by David A. McClellan (2003), assistant professor of integrative biology at Brigham Young University:
Another haplotype, C10, [Rickards et al., 1999] found only among the Cayapa people of Ecuador in relatively high frequencies (30 percent) does not appear to be closely related to any other extant human haplotype. This is another example of a DNA type in the America’s of unknown origin.
Stone and Stoneking (1998), who investigated a burial site of pre-Columbian skeletons dating to about 1300 A.D. Of 152 individuals, 102 could be assigned to one of the four primary haplogroups (A,B,C,D). Six "did not possess any of the characteristic markers of Asians and were designated as belonging to a group designated "other". The remaining 44 samples did not yield enough DNA for analysis.
The non-Asian DNA did not match DNA from the two researchers most likely to have accidentally contaminated the samples. It did match DNA from two Finnish individuals. Even though multiple samples were taken, and extreme care was exercised to avoid contamination, the pre-Colombian samples still yielded non Asian European DNA
The outlier DNA from the pre-Colombian site was discarded as a recent admixture despite multiple independent extractions of these samples. It seems to be a common practice to assume that all unexpected results are post-Columbus admixture even though there is no evidence for that.
An excellent discussion of the very real problem of contamination of ancient DNA samples is provided by Kolman and Tuross (2000), who also provide an interesting example in which pre-Columbian genetic material from a Native American appears to provide reproducible evidence of European origins. In spite of numerous efforts to exclude contamination, this result, identically reproduced in multiple careful trials, is presented as a case of "obvious" contamination because it was non-Asian:
The fact that this haplotype is found at high frequency in European populations (17%, Richards et al., 1996) and is not found in presumably ancestral Asian populations argues against this interpretation and against the inclusion of this sequence in a NewWorld database
Occurrences among indigenous Americans of cde or A or B of the ABO were once attributed to recent admixture and databases were "corrected" accordingly. It is now understood that some of these unexpected alleles arrived in antiquity
Y Chromosome Connections of Jews and American Indians
Critics have claimed that Y chromosome research shows no connections between American Indians and modern Jews. However, more recent research shows this to be false. Douglass Forbes points out that Y chromosome SMP biallelic marker QP36, also known by the mutation marker M242, postulated by Bayar & colleges to be a founding linage group of Ashkenazi Jews is also present in Iranian and Iraqi Jews and is a founding lineage present in 31% of self identified Native American Indians in the Unites States. A branch of the QP36 lineage M323 is also found in Yemenite Jews. The QP36 lineage is ancestral to the QM3 mutation group. The QP36 and QM3 lineages which make up Haplogroup Q, is found in over 76% of Native Americans. Forbes further writes we find MQ242, another name for QP36 scattered all over central Eurasian and concentrated in Turkistan, just north of Iran. The Ten Tribes were taken captive to northwest Iran and so the M243 is found scattered just where you’d expect it to be if the legions about the Ten Tribes escaping captivity by going north are true. Other west Eurasian lineages found in Native American test subjects are R, E3B, J, F G and I. All of these are also found in modern Jews. It has not yet been determined how much of this is a result of these are recent admixture and how much is pre-Colombian.
Complete NONSENSE! There is NO COMPARISON! Regular BUSINESSES don't have an endless, cult-member source of Tax Free income to turn around and reinvest in their ventures.
IT SHOULD ALL BE FULLY TAXED. These CULTS (Mormon, Catholic, Christian...) are frauds. All in it for the money. GET REAL.
w that Mitt Romney running for President we can expect more of this type of tripe from the National Barack Channel and the Always Barack Channel.
I must say this I prefer the mormon religion over obama's muslim religion.
aaah. a perfect example of trying to pin religion on Obama but getting all huffy when someone brings up mormonism.
jerry-1927474 a perfect example of a right wing facist ! keep on believing in mormon
cult . your most definitely " pro-choice" as all republicans "choose" to have wars , but... not
to pay for them. "choose" to send other peoples kids to fight those wars . "choose" to elect
reps and senators who don't create any jobs. "choose" no regulations on business and no
taxes on the richest one per cent ! why don't you move to the Cayman Islands and say
Hello to Mitt's money .
well have a look at you tube video...The Creation of Mormonism....you just might have a second thought....
Funny......Before the GOP was down to "Mittens", THEY were the ones reminding everyone that Romney was a Mormon and NOT a Christian. Now that he is all you have left, Mormonism (or whatever) is just fine and dandy. Well, now maybe he can convince you mindless drones into becoming Mormons. How much of a "tithe" can they put you down for?????
How is it that this article failed to mention Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, another prominent Mormon? Is being a Mormon evil only if you are a Republican?
Mormonism is a perfectly legitimate religion, only slightly more ridiculous than any other except scientology maybe.
At least the other religions were created at a time before people knew about science and how the world really works.
@ Capt. Hammers, ----you can say that again.
Of course, you have to be able to stretch your imagination to believe that god lives on planet Kolob, that he is married and has children, and that the translations on the Rosetta Stone were wrong. LOL
Mormonism has the distinct disadvantage of being born in modern history, during a time in which its beginnings (something about some golden plates or tablets, IDK) were very well documented. Had the beginnings of any other religion been as well documented as the Mormon religion was, it would enjoy the same level of scrutiny.
Mormon religion is more ridiculous in that they teach that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers.
Why is that so ridiculous? Have your read Revelations?
ohh and native americans are the chosen ones.....
Jerry
We all are Brothers in Christ. You just fail to acknowledge it
"Mormonism is uniquely American. It proclaims the United States as the Promised Land, Utah as the new Zion, and calls for devotion to a sacred text of American prehistory. Among American-born religions, this last characteristic stands out. Yet despite the prominence of Native Americans in Mormon theology, in many ways Mormons treated American Indians similarly to gentiles, as Mormons call non-Mormons.
"According to Smith, when he found and translated the now-lost golden plates, they told of a lost tribe of Israel that migrated to the Americas many hundreds of years ago. These first Americans built a flourishing and advanced civilization, but one branch, the Lamanites, killed their righteous relatives, the Nephites. For this and their rejection of Christ's teachings, God cursed the Lamanites with dark skin and a degraded existence. The story maintained that the Lamanites would not regain white skin and a civilized way of life until they accepted Christ's teachings. Thus, the heavenly beings instructed Smith not only to restore the true Christian church, but also to bring salvation to Native Americans.
"In a short time [after moving to Utah], church leaders authorized attacking American Indians who refused to give up their resources without a fight. Church leaders argued that Native Americans who resisted were actually rejecting Christ's message and, by refusing, justified retribution."
Always interesting reading.
what about elohim and his wives...and all those worlds...
There are plenty of bizarre ideologies. Why is it so weird that one of them has God living on another planet? Though if they would have left it all nebulous and mystical they wouldn't have gotten ripped on so much. At least Scientology believes in Aliens to. Oh and of course we can't forget the Raelians - We are derived from clones created by Alien overlords. Awesome!
ctviking: Are you for real, do you not understand that the vast majority of the Science community are men and women of religion. They have not rejected religion - they accept that religion and science co-exist. Did you honestly believe that a person that goes to a University and picks a science field for study has chosen to reject their religious beliefs? An education does not make a person an atheist.
No, an education does not automatically make a person atheist. But the critical thinking skills that come with scientific training tend to make most people a little more skeptical of the magical claims all religions make, unless you are capable of some serious cognitive dissonance.
Mormons work diligently to conceal their religious practices, ceremonies and activities from outsiders. A reglion based on secrecy. Secrecy is ingrained and basic. IT's why Romney can't release his 1040's. Disclosure, information, transparency goes against his core. Guess what kind of Prez he'd be ?
At least Obama is really good at being transparent...
Ternan
You are incorrect. The vast majority of scientists are aethist.
Imagine how much more advance we would be as a society if all the religious put their time and money into teaching science and math to their children instead of brainwashing them with fairy tales that have a moral to the story.
To Chris-749391
Mormons ordered no attack on Native Americans. I have no idea where you got that from but you didn't get if from real facts or real history.
Mormons don't call non-Mormons Gentiles. Never heard that.
Since your comment is fradulent and dishonest, right up there with the Birther BS, why do you think anyone cares?
No we aren't! You cannot even prove your mythical jesus creature exists, or is the son of any god. And, as well, you cannot prove your cult god exists. You people CONTINUALLY fail to acknowledge that.
Dwight, you should know very well what he is talking about. It was the Mountain Meadow Massacre in which Mormons attacked and killed emigrants from Arkansas while disguised as Indians.
Yes, they do. I have over 50 Mormon first cousins.... and oh yeah... they do.
It was not ordered by the church.
All my life...it has been "the church this and the church that". "The church wouldn't approve of..." "The church says...."
My grandfather (who served his term as bishop) abused my mother. My grandmother, who raised 15 Mormon children didn't turn him in to authoriites or "the church". Or, maybe she did and they protected him, hmmm?
After 13 years of going to Mormon sunday school, I don't remember a single lesson taught directly from the Bible except for the interpretation of the origin of Blacks. And that lesson is false doctrine. Every sermon, every lesson was to reinforce "church indoctrination". The "role of women", "the purpose of blacks", and "acceptance by tithing" were dominant. When my older sister told me that "should a black join the church, their skin will turn white." I am sure that wasn't ordered by "the church" either, right? When the "living prophet" announced in the early '70's that blacks may "enjoy FULL membership in the church" I looked around the room at the faces of my large and indoctrinated Mormon family.... at the faces of shock and disbelief ... and the hypocrisy could actually was so stinking thick that I left the room in disgust at the church and my family. At the next family reunion, I was held in a tent by my cousins for hours to be castigated for my decision. "You don't want to be thrown out as a gentile, do you?"
Every brother and uncle in my family has been a bishop. Over half of my male cousins has been a bishop. It has poisoned what could have been a wonderful family. You have been "indoctrinated". It took many years to get the blood suckers to leave me alone and I won't attend any family functions held at "the church". Which is pretty much ALL of them. Birthday parties, anniversaries, and funerals.
Every decision of your life is based on whether "the church" would approve. I expect the leaders of the party at Mountain Meadow had much of the same indoctrination when they murdered under the truce. As a matter of fact.......
There have been a lot of excommunicate bishops for committing adultery and child abuse.
And your sister was taught by some one that did not understand what he was teaching.
You forgot the role of men and that is to serve women and lead the house.
I absolutely haven't forgotten "the role of men". But I don't need you or "the church" to teach it to me. Thank GOD my father was a gentile. I watched as the elders told him after he allowed them in the house to visit Mama, "Now as man of the house you should lead us in prayer...."
One of the most defining moments of my life was when my father quietly said, "No, as the man of the house you are welcome to pray here if you so desire. But you don't tell me in my house when to pray or how to pray. As my belief is to not attempt to control you, I expect the same from you."
Last thing to all of you from the "church". Dwight and all the rest that have come here to defend your beliefs.
and (not exact.. I am not next to my Bible)
What I wish with tears in my eyes for all my Mormon family is written above. I weep for them for not by deeds will I meet them in heaven.
Just as you ask others to open their hearts to the Book of Mormon, I ask you to quietly, in a silent place, ask God if deeds can be enough.
The role of the man of the house is to lead. He can choose to pray or some one else or not at all.
Every member of the church can answer that with out prayer it is never enough never has been never will be by only the gift of god though Jesus can we be saved in the kingdom of heaven. But I will ask with an open heart if what you think that "works" can save mankind. is true.
Only by faith. Deeds not inspired by love are empty.
The Samaritan did not advertise his deeds, Jesus did.
What about my magic undies? Will they at least save me from gunfire, adoring fans, and skidmarks?
For the most part they are not advertised. some are like the helping hands at times most of the time helping hands are just in every day work cloths. no one will ever know every act of service I do save for God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and my wife that is how it should be and for the most part it is that way.
Yes your right.
They are not magic. They are worn in remembrance of promises we try to keep to our Heavenly Father.
Enough members have died in combat to say absolutely not and any one that thought it could is wrong.
IF you have that your just SOL with that even death wont stop them.
You may need to see a doctor for that or wear depends.
I think it's interesting that everyone focuses on how much money the church makes, but rarely mentions the fact that the church pays for nearly everything church-related. The utilities, groundskeeping, computers, food, training, and maintenance for all 140+ temples? Church funded. Same thing goes for every single one of thousands of other church buildings and properties. They also subsidize a lot of other, expensive resources and materials for church members. That doesn't include the amount of money that is spent on helping members struggling with paying bills and feeding their families or the Perpetual Education Fund that helps members in some developing countries gain job skills and find employment, or helping the families of missionaries who can't afford the roughly $10,000 it costs to send missionaries out.
It's easy to get lost in the estimated $7 billion a year in tithing or $35 billion worth of real estate and forget how the church spends so much on other things.
And every place the Mormon church owns a property, that's just another property that isn't part of the local tax base and which other taxpayers are therefor subsidizing.
I'd like to see the accounting on that. You say "spends so much on other things" - that's a big statement to make. Where's the Balance Sheet we all can look at?
I pay for everything Rweber related and I have to pay taxes!
@skrekk - this is true for the temples and church buildings (just like any other religion) but if it's a for profit property or company, they pay taxes. Look up 'Deseret Management Corporation' which holds all of their for profit holdings. They all pay tax.
They'd be able to deduct those costs and would only have to pay taxes on the "profits."
I wonder what kind of number you'd get if you took all the revenue that every tax-exempt church in the US takes in, then subtracted the expenses and multiplied the remainder by a reasonable tax rate (say 25%)?
I bet it would be more than the NASA Budget (~$18.5B).
Mike every year the total amount of Tithes taken in and Church expenses are listed on the LDS website. This is done that everyone can see the way that the Presidency is spending the money taken in by the Church
As with almost any other church organization, those things churches do would need to be done by some type of group. If not a church or other NFP, then by government.
Many people complain about the size of government, yet they would certainly not want to eliminate the competition.
@skrekk. Why focus on the Mormon Church? The same is trur of all of them.
.
The question is, who is more likely to do good with $7 billion dollars, the Mormon Church or our government? I know who I'd rather trust my money to help the poor, feed the hungry, teach people job skills and give them a hand up in a time of need (and I'm not even Mormon).
shrekk: you can also say the something about the tax exempt status of the 38,000 recognized charites in the United States. My point is very simple - taxpayers are not subsidizing any religion with tax dollars. Where do you come up with those ideas? Lord knows I suspect your on public assistance and in no position to subsidize anyone or anything. Though I am probably subsidizing you because your either too lazy, stupid or uneducated to get and hold on to a job.
In fact I do say that about all churches which own property exempt from property tax. Every such property means that the tax base is that much smaller, and thus the tax burden is shifted onto others.
No church should be exempt from property tax.
I sure wouldn't want my money going to groups like the Mormon church which lobby against the civil rights of other Americans.
Since 1985 the church has spent a total of $1.4 billion on relief for disasters such as Japan's earthquake and Ethiopian famine, and it operates 129 "bishops' storehouses" with food and household items for the needy.
In the year 2007 alone, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints responded to major earthquakes in 5 countries, massive fires in 6 countries, hunger and famine in 18 countries, and flooding and severe storms in 34 countries. In total the Church and its members responded to 170 major events — nearly one every two days for the entire year. The motivation behind this vast global work centers on the simple charge given by Jesus so many years ago to “love thy neighbor as thyself.”
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints conducts humanitarian activities worldwide. From 1985 to 2009 Humanitarian Services provided more than $1.2 billion in total assistance to needy individuals in 178 countries and territories. This church has 14 million members world-wide and five million in the United States. They were first at Katrina and brought food, clothing, and their hard backs and arms to help there.
In 1996 the Church organized Latter-day Saint Charities as a non-governmental organization to facilitate humanitarian activities in selected countries.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints provides relief and development projects for humanitarian purposes in countries all over the world. Projects operate without regard to the nationality or religion of the recipients.
* Humanitarian service may include emergency response to natural disasters, such as an earthquake or a tsunami, or man-made disasters, such as the effects of war and famine. It may also be part of a longer-term effort to meet serious and more entrenched human needs, such as the need to alleviate disease.
* Within hours of a disaster, the Church works with local government officials to determine what supplies and food are needed. Materials are then immediately sent to the area.
* After urgent needs are met, the Church looks for additional ways to help with the long-term needs of the community. The Church’s approach is to help people become self-reliant by teaching skills and providing resources for a self-sustained life.
* Donations, principally from Church members but also from people around the world, are used to make relief projects possible. One hundred percent of the donations given to the Church’s humanitarian services are used for relief efforts. The Church absorbs its own overhead costs.
* The humanitarian services arm of the Church sponsors five ongoing global projects to help people become more self-reliant. Initiatives include neonatal resuscitation training, clean water projects, wheelchair distribution, vision treatment and measles vaccinations.
7.5 million people now have access to clean water because of the Church's humanitarian efforts throughout the world over the past 10 years?
550,000 people have benefited from the Church's vision projects?
415,000 have received wheelchairs or other mobility devices?
The people of 58 countries received relief supplies after 119 disasters in 2010 alone?
The list goes on. Millions of Mormons make donations and volunteer their service to bring about such efforts.
Below are recent examples of Latter-day Saint involvement throughout the world.
Church Expands Donations to Japan (11/16/11)
Update on Church Response to Thailand Flooding (11/15/11)
Church Aids Thailand as Monsoon Flooding Displaces Millions (10/27/11)
Church Partnering to Help East Africa Drought Victims (10/26/11)
Back-to-Back Typhoons Hit Philippines, Church Helps With Life-Sustaining Supplies (10/7/11)
Mormons in the Northwest United States and Canada Pitch In to Help Communities (9/22/11)
Mormon Helping Hands Clean and Comfort (9/21/11)
Mormon Helping Hands Paint, Garden and Clean in the UK (9/9/11)
Hurricane Irene Cleanup Update (9/9/11)
Africa Mormon Helping Hands Celebrate Five Years by Volunteering (8/31/11)
Mormons and Provo United Church of Christ Join to Spruce Up Century-Old Chapel (8/29/11)
Mormon Helping Hands Find Joy in Beautifying Brazil (8/5/11)
Mormon Volunteers From Winnipeg Sacrifice to Repair Flood-Damaged Homes (7/29/11)
Mormon Helping Hands Pitch In to Aid Neighbors in Tornado-Ravaged Southern U.S. (5/6/11)
Thousands of Mormon Volunteers Lend a Hand in California and Hawaii (5/3/2011)
Latter-day Saints Help With Cleanup After Tornadoes Hit Southern United States (4/18/11)
Day of Service in South Florida (4/13/2011)
An extensive study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life about the Mormon Church was released in March of this year. Entitled “Mormons and Civic Life” the study found that the church and its members possess a culture of service that is unique in the nation.
The study addressed topics about Mormon culture such as; A Culture of Volunteering, A Culture of Donating, Mormons: Helping the Poor Essential, Emphasis on Self-sufficiency, Volunteering Levels Exceed Other Religions and Social Connections Drive Volunteering.
In summary the study states that Mormons are more giving of time and resources to helping their neighbor and the needy than other groups. Additionally, it finds that service is institutionalized within the church and serving is very important to Mormon Church members
Dwight, how much did they spend on proposition 8?
The Church was about 5K
Anyone seen the new "I'm a regular guy/gal who happens to be a mormon" commercials?
Jesse on crack!
Sharpton on meth!
Oprah on a diet!
TAX the HELL out of them!! Mormonism is not a religion it is a cult!
Tax the hell out of all them!! They're all cults!!! Religion is in the heart and mind not in shopping malls and real estate holdings!!!!!!!!
. . . all religions are cults. Look up the definition.
watch you tube video - The Creation of Mormonism
Since Athesism is a cult too. Open your wallets boys
If you want to have faith in a supreme being or an afterlife but I would rather we base our society on science and the rule of law not some mystical book. How about we go bak to reading the entrails of animals to divine the word of god(s). Why do people accept the teachings of some guy in robes or an ugly suit as knowing more about god than you do. Bunch of sheeple.
@bodydouble. Why do you get decide which is a cult and which is a religion? I know Catholic who think theirs s the only religion. Who decides
.
they are all cults and should be taxed, and by the way, us atheists do pay taxes
how much money has jessie jackson and al sharp ton taking in over the last forty years?
Not 7 billion a year that is for sure. I bet combinded, the two of them have not made 7 million over the last 40 years let alone 7 BILLION A YEAR!
And Al and Jesse don't pay taxes on it all either.
Doesn't matter...........Neither one of them are running for President. Oh....By the way....When are we going to get a peek at those tax returns?????
Disgusting that people here are deciding which is a legitimate religion and which is not. The Catholics think all but theirs is illegitimate.
I can see why Mitt (R-Money) doesn't want anyone to see his tax returns.....he doesn't want his church to know that he didn't tithe a full 10%.
Lol. I heard a good quote somewhere. It was:
"The only person who has seen Romney's full tax returns is John McCain, and he chose Sarah Palin as a running mate."
Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
And Ryan had to give Romney ten years of his returns ........
Actually they have to go to what is called tithing settlement meetings each year where they have to show thier tax returns to prove they tithed at least 10%, otherwise they can't get into temple. Romney will show his church but not us.
lol...probably true!!!!!
@akgirl-846983 - this is not quite true. Though Mormons do attend tithing settlement every year to "declare" whether they've paid their tithing or not, tax returns are never required. You receive a slip of paper showing the donations you've made for the year, and are simply asked if you are a full tithe payer. Simple as that.
No one is excommunicated for not paying tithing.
Eastonballer,
The Temple is a separate "sacred" area of the church. This is from Mormon.org :"Because of its sacred nature, attendance in the temple is limited to Mormons who obey God's commandments and therefore are worthy to enter"
@akgirl - most of my extended family are active members. I don't happen to be. It does not interest me.
But I'll say this, I have never heard of anyone inside of the Mormon Church, in any leadership capacity ever ask a member during tithing settlement to produce their tax returns to "prove" they tithed at least 10%.
Tithing settlement takes place in December of every year prior to the end of the wage earning year. No business I know can issue a W2 prior to the end of the calendar year? W2s are produced during January, and most tax payers don't even prepare their returns until March/April. So how exactly would they "show their tax returns to prove they tithed at least 10%" during tithing settlement in December?
It is simple. Active members don't "prove" anything. Like the church or not, it is all done on the honor system. And I know lots of active members who don't pay a full tithe. They still attend all of their weekly services in their local chapels and are active in every way...the only thing they can't do if they are not paying a full tithe is attend the special services in their temples. That is really the only negative result for not paying a full tithe. And again...the only person who determines whether you are paying a full tithe or not...is the member him/her self. When a leader asks you if you are paying a full tithe...you answer either "yes" or "no". No one checks your taxes to see if you are paying 2%, 7%, 10% or 20%. Honor system.
Just my opinion...but $7 billion annually in chartitable contributions all paid as part of an honor system? All from a church of only 14 million total members? That comes out to $500 of donations per member (active or inactive) man, woman, or child. Say what you want, that is a pretty devoted group of people paying. I wonder what the per capita giving of other denominations are? Would make an interesting comparison...
I have always had issues with regards to how they spend all of those donations. Everything the church builds is always "over done" in my opinion. All of their buildings use the most expensive materials. They spend lots of money on landscaping them so they look immaculate. I have always asked myself if all of this is really necessary? Could they spend more money on helping the poor and needy and less on such grandiose buildings?
But I guess you could ask the same types of questions about many of the other large, highly-centralized, & organized religions? Like the Roman Catholics, the Church of England (Anglican), Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, etc.
Actually, if there are 14 million active members, and each one was "tithing" and they tithed $ 500, that means the average income for each would be about $5,000. It's no wonder the church needs the farms, malls, etc. Its gotta need all that income to help all the poor mormons out there .....
jk/lol.
More likely than not, the 14million figure is probably inflated and the majority do not tithe. They give what they can, when they can. As Christ indicated in one of his parables, if one person gives three sheckles, that being all she has, and another gives a gold coin, that being one of thousands, who has given more ?
The article says, 55000 missionary forces, primarily youths but also seniors. The Catholic Church in the US claims 57,000 nuns... the average age being 70. We're now up to about enough people to fill a football stadium, either with youth and no brains or experience, or experience but no health. And that's the people with the spirit to do the church's good works, for two faiths in the US. What's needed now is a count on the other religions of the US to see if we can get the population of the people of faith who have the spirt to do good works... to get this population to about 300,000 total, and then we'd have another 1%. It seems pretty clear that about 5% of the nation, for one belief system or another, really really really isn't interested in paying their share of the tax burden.
Where do you get your incorrect information?
Tithing settlement consists of a bishop asking you "Are you a full tithe payer?" You say yes, no, or if you are a partial tithe payer. You don't show any documentation. Tithing is a biblical teaching.
When my new lifelong Mormon sister-in-law tried to proselytize me into Mormonism while I bought her and my brother's very expensive dinner in Las Vegas, she told me the Mormon church was the fastest growing church anywhere. Thanks for revealing that the Seventh-Day Adventists have more members and are growing faster. Mormons appear to be tax-free business run on required donations they can do anything they want to with. If they're so great, why the brute force promotion rather than being so good at attraction?
The article was a surprise to me, too. I wish it would have cited a source for the membership numbers on the Seventh-Day Adventists other than the Adventist church's own claims. It'd be interesting to know if that "million new members a year" claim was verifiable. I've only ever met one bona-fide Seventh-Day Adventist in my life. She was a sweet, intelligent, funny, and cute classmate in high school, and I asked her to prom. She apologized profusely for refusing and told me she really appreciated the offer and wanted to go, but her parents wouldn't allow it because they followed the writings of a 19th-century female Adventist scholar(I forget the name) who decried dancing as a gateway to sin (along with bicycle riding and fishing, which I'm guessing were the prevailing co-ed social activities of the day). She was very nice about it and joked about how silly she thought it was.
To be fair, on Prom night, dancing usually does lead to sin.
And female bike riding is still under review .....
mormons want to rule the world...now they want a president...
There is no source for the claim about the Seventh Day Adventist church because it is not true.
As to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being the fastest growing church in the U.S.A., look at both the Wall Street Journal and Newsweek. Both carried articles on this phenomenon in the last ten years.
And this is different from other religions how?
It is different because there has been a decline overall in both organized religions' memberships in the U.S.A. and a decline in religiousity in the last forty years or so. Almost every traditional religion out there has been complaining of declining attendance and membership.
Meanwhile, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has had an almost ever increasing rate of increasing membership.
It took 117 years to achieve 1 million living members of the Church by the end of 1947. It then only took til 1963 to hit 2 million, then 1971 for 3 million, then 1978 to hit 4 million, then 1982 for 5 million, then 1986 for 6 million, 1989 for 7 million, then 1991 for 8 million, 1994 for 9 million, 10 million in 1997, 11 million in 2000, 2004 for 12 million, 2007 to reach 13 million and 2010 for 14 million members. That really looks like a boulder gaining momentum at a terrific rate to me!!
They are growing fast because they are "encouraged" to have as many children as possible. The church controls almost every aspect of their lives.
Last time I checked, it was the Bible that says to multiply, not the mormon church. Society says to have few kids so that you are less convenienced and more financially bolstered.
@Pinky57: Do you actually know anything about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? What you posted here says you know nothing real about the members of the Church or the Church. They control almost every aspect of my life?!? What a crock!!!
Or Pinky, are you one of those people that think the R-LDS or the F-LDS are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Now, those folks ARE a bit looney, a good bit. Warren Jeffs and people like him really give good Christian members of the Church a bad name.
Or Pinky, are you one of those folks that cannot take advice from anyone let alone a church leader or even Christ? Yes, the LDS people by sociology are considered more than just a religious people. Like the Jews, we are listed as a sub-culture. Due to our standards of moral conduct, we dress slightly different than American average (more modestly than most), eat differently (yes, we have a dietary code that has thou shalts and thou shalt nots in it created long before the FDA and science proved it correct), speak differently (expletives are nearly none existent and certain words [e.g. testimony or ward] that have more meanings than in standard American English) and so forth. The Church holds its members to a very high standard of behavior. Why not?
And Pinky, the Church says the number of children one has is between the couple and God. That is the doctrine and that is how it is. I have never been told I am going to hell or somewhere else less desirable because I only have two children.
Shoot Pinky, where did you come up with this mis-information. I hope it was not a source you hold dear because it is all a crock of ... !
In life, if you shoot for the stars, you may only land in the manure pile; if you only shoot for the manure pile, how far do you really get?
This is one of the reasons the mormon religion is not considered a Christian religion. Christ put the needs of the poor and sick above all and also said a lot about storing up riches on earth. The mormons are a very closed religion and I do not think they go outside of their own to help others, however I do admit I have not resesched this to see if it is fact. I also have a lot against the catholic religion for the same reasons, they build up tremendous amounts of money and the hiearchy lives extravagantly, even though they do a lot for the poor and the sick including those outside of their faith. I also believe the nuns who are going against church law by upholding the homosexual lifestyle and abortion, should remember their vows of being married to Jesus Christ and obeying his teachings. The Vatican should hold them all accountable and if they continue to rebel against the church and Christ they should be ex-comunicated.
Right... Which is why Christian churches don't store up riches on earth. None of them take in insane amounts of money, pay their top staff handsomely, etc. Oh wait, there are plenty of examples otherwise in all forms of Christianity
Then why don't you go ahead and do that before you state something like that. They do it the same way Christian religions do, while trying to push their religion on those they're helping.
Um, the Vatican should hold them accountable? For what? Doing the exact same thing the Vatican itself does? Nice...
@Jerry,
The reason why Mormons are not considered "Christians" is the Nicene (Apostles') Creed. This was a statement that defines what ALL Christians believe and was adopted in 325AD, long before Joseph Smith and his now-missing golden plates and magic glasses. The authors were extremely careful in their choice of wording because they wanted to cover everything believed by mainstream Christians of the time while excluding "splinter" beliefs. Both Catholics and Protestants and all their denominations have the Nicene Creed or a re-wording that does not change the meaning (such as substituting "living" for "quick") as their Profession of Faith.
The LDS (Mormon) Church accepts only around half the Nicene Creed and most importantly rejects the Christian Trinity and its underlying concepts. They do, however, believe that Christ came to the New World and ministered to the American Indians who were a "lost" tribe of Israel. He turned them brown and caused them to speak "Babel" instead of aramaic/Hebrew because they would not follow him. Nothing about that stuff in the Nicene Creed.
Wonder if Romney plans to be sworn in on the Bible or the "co-equal" Book of Mormon ..... Wonder what a White House would be like after coffee was banned .... Wonder about the Mittster's "garments" and what is embroidered thereon.
Chris-7949391, where are you getting this stuff? That entire second paragraph isn't what Mormons believe at all.
If Romney is elected (heaven forbid), I imagine he'd be sworn in with a King James Bible, as that's what Mormons use and believe in.
I find the fact that you're concerned about what's on other peoples' underwear WAY more disturbing than whatever might actually be there. Even the Patriot Act doesn't go that far...
Chris its good that all the other Christians have limited their beliefs to just the crazy stories is in the Bible. It would be unfortunate if you added more to stories of Prophets getting swallowed by whales, or prophets who's daughters get them drunk and sleep with them, or Prophets collecting the foreskins of the people they kill, or turning rivers to blood, or dividing the sea with your wand, or talking donkeys, or any other story that would make it really weird to believe in another book with the same kind of stuff.
Genius.
You are right Jerry; your research is lacking.
Next Sunday, visit an LDS congregation; it is called a "ward" in English; they are listed in the White Pages under the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Better yet, go to lds.org, go to the meetinghouse locator, put in your address and the website will give you directions to the meetinghouse in which the congregation your neighbors attend is located. It will even tell you the times of the meetings
Let me just point you in the right direction:
Let me also point out that when you arrive there, on the sign of the meetinghouse, it will say, "Visitors Welcome". The Church is not a closed organization, an exclusive social club or anything of the sort. Any person can attend meetings
Yeah, yeah, someone will bring up the Church's ~140 temples at this point. Actually, any one can go if they are willing to meet the simple standards of attendance. What are those? Live a Christ-like life by following His teachings and following the example of Christ's life. That is all. Simple in the requirement; difficult in the execution in this world filled with toil, strife and sin though. Yes, you need to be interviewed by two local church leaders, but the interview is about how you are doing at living a Christ-like life. In both interviews you are asked the same few questions. The last question in both is the real kicker - "Do you feel worthy yourself to attend the temple?" Always makes me stop and assess my actions and my life; I never pop off with a quick answer. There are times I have said "No." and for the next while, I have not gone to a temple until I feel my life is more in accordance with Christ's teachings and example.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is as open of an organization as you are willing for it to be. Nothing of value in this life comes free. Be prepared to work for what you desire. There Is No Free Lunch!
DouglasJB: I don't know if you are a leader in the LDS Church, but you do speak well of it. I happen to be Protestant, fully believing that I am saved by my faith in Jesus Christ through the grace of God. While I understand that the LDS places a certain emphasis on works as being required for justification (or being saved) which appears to also be required to even attend the temple.
My question is, if all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, how could anyone be worthy of attending the temple ?
Sorry for being a debbie downer, I was truly starting to get interested until you pointed out that requirement.
dirp: All have sinned, but Jesus' Atonement means we can all repent. Nobody is perfect, including temple recommend-holding Mormons, but if you're trying to do your best and applying the grace of Jesus in your life, you're worthy. In Matthew, Jesus commands us to be perfect. We're not perfect by ourselves, not by a long shot, but we can follow Him and gradually become more and more like Him.
Let s talk about the pedofiles in the Catholic Church that were protected by the Church.
Jerry, about that statement that the LDS Church doesn't help anyone outside of their religion. Apparently you have missed all of the help the church has provided after the Japanese Tsunami and other global disasters, maybe you missed the articles on the truck loads of food and materials sent to hurricane and tornado victims in the south, along with thousands of volunteers to help clean up. Look around the world and you'll see mormons providing help to others "outside of their religion." With 7 billion people in the world and only 14 million mormons (approx. .2% of the worlds population) much of what they do is for non-mormons. This service is so important the missionaries stop their missionary efforts and become focused on providing necessary service. Go ahead and google LDS Church and any of the mentioned disasters.
@Jerry: bltdriver is speaking of "Mormon Helping Hands". Every time a member of the Church helps in one of these organized campaigns, they wear either a vest or a t-shirt that says "Mormon Helping Hands" on the back. Plus, these garments are that ugly chartreuse colour so they stand out in a crowd and/or low light conditions.
Moreover Jerry, around the U.S.A., LDS Charities even has pre-positioned semi trailers filled with food, blankets, first aid supplies and the like so that we can be prepared to assist immediately in times of crisis.
Furthermore Jerry, every last member of the Church is expected to help their immediate neighbors in times of crisis and/or change. Births, deaths, lost jobs, sickness and so forth calls out members of the Church to assist those around them where they live. Members are expected to help all in times of great crisis, but also to be there with just a hug to get a troubled person through a day. Christ did say the second greatest commandment is to love thy neighbor as thyself.
When the big earthquake-caused tsunami hit Indonesia, a Muslim charity asked LDS Charities for supplies. Their representative was given a tour of Welfare Square in SLC. The LDS Charities representative said yes to the supplies. The Muslim rep told him the tonnage of supplies required and the LDS Charities representative said, "No problem. We can have all that down to SLC International Airport in just a few hours." The Muslim rep was totally flabbergasted; it took him about two or so more days to just get the aircraft there to receive the supplies.
Yes, we help folks around the world every day. Did any of you know about our well drilling aid in Africa? Or the wheelchairs we supply the disabled in the developing world? How about our Third World immunization program? All these and much more are not hard to find out about. You just have to ask.
@dirp: it is as Jackie said. The constant use of Christ's Atonement and the process of Repentence and the taking of the Lord's Supper (The Sacrament, Communion and other names) as part of that repentance process is how one is worthy to attend the temple. Only when I have not availed myself recently of this gift from God do I feel unworthy.
I never understand folks who think that the Latter-day Saints believe they work their way to Heaven. We are baptized and follow the teaching of Jesus Christ that John wrote, "If you love me, keep my commandments." We know very well that we can only enter into Heaven through the Grace of Christ, but we also know from His teachings that we must be obedient to His commandments to qualify for His Grace. The Resurrection, salvation from physical death, is a free gift to all, but that Exaltation, salvation from spiritual death, comes only through the Grace of Christ after we show we are His through obedience to what He has commanded.
@Lulu98: What do Roman Catholic pedophiles have to do with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
That is great So do we. We just believe we have to fallow the commandments. But if you feel you can kill and still be saved that is your belief.
Mormons help the community all the time. Back when Alabama had all of the tornadoes, there were hundreds of volunteers. Same with the Georgia floods in the 90s, Katrina, and other events. Our group didn't even help any mormon families.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HSlbuli7HM
I am sick to death of these con artists that claim to be prophets trying to run this country and my life. So 150 years ago some con man lied to some very easily manipulated people and said only he could see these imaginary gold tablets by throwing some magic rocks into a top hat and now 14 million complete idiots give his cult ten percent of their income so it can buy the presidency and force their retarded beliefs on the entire country.
Please conservatives grow a brain for just long enough to see through the BS. Do you really want a cult member as president?
Do you really think this is different than the Catholic Church?
Actually, 11 other people testified that the handled the plates themselves, and they never reneged even after some had disagreements with Joseph Smith and left the church.
That's $1.68 billion that we the taxpayers have to make up for. That's for the Mormons, what about the Baptists, the Jews, the Catholics and the others? Churches should be taxed!
What do you "have to make up for"? Tithing is a voluntary donation, in addition to the taxes the members already pay. And if you're going to gripe about the tax credit they get, anyone who donates to charities get those same deductions. Maybe you should look into being a little more charitable?
This article was written as an external study, no actual facts or sources were used to get any of these "estimates." They unsurprisingly left off the amount of money and time the members and church spend helping victims of disasters and those who need some extra help paying bills.
How is it voluntary if you're threatened with hell if you don't do it? Tithing is nothing more than a protection racket.
A member will not be excommunicated or even disfellowshipped for not paying tithing. Mormons do believe it is and has always been God's law. This is a teaching in the bible; it's nothing new.
Define "cult" and you'll see that any religion, not just LDS are one. I love how people just throw "cult" out like they have some wisdom and knowledge attached to the word. Kinda like "pyramid scheme". Oooo... Know the biggest pyramid scheme in the country is... a job! You can't make more money then the top guy, you can't pass the top guy and the top guy is making millions off of you!!! And people will talk about "I'm not getting into network marketing. It's just a pyramid scheme". So, by definition, a job (which is a pyramid scheme) is illegal and allll the other legitimate network marketing businesses are hung out to dry... and they are the opposite of what a pyramid scheme is. Always best to get your facts straight before letting loose with accusations...
www.dictionary.com
cult [kuhlt]
noun
1.a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3.the object of such devotion.
4.a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5.Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols
The difference between a cult an a religion.
In a cult, there's a guy at the top who knows it's all a scam.
In a religion, that person is dead.
Tax all cults, religions, covens, churches and sects. Whatever you call it, tax the schit out of it. You don't even have to call it a "tax", call it a "tithing" to the US government.
collect it from all religions...and we won't have a deficit....
A job is not a pyramid scheme as long as something is produced. Pyramid schemes exist when the only thing produced is more people joining the scheme and passing their money up the ladder. The hope is to get higher on the ladder and have the people below you funneling money up to you. Whether a few cosmetics are sold along the way is immaterial -- very little is actually produced, it's a closed system where the "members" provide most of the cash. A job in a business that produces a product or a service brings money in from outside and distributes it among employees according to their rank and status. It's different; though your definition has the advantage of being cute and snarky, it's not accurate.
It may interest all you who would "tax a beet till it turns white", most religious institutions are not brick and mortar buildings, they're real people. These people pay taxes AND they pay tithe, which has been going on since the days of the patriarch Abraham. Read also what Jesus said about Caesar and God.
Someone mentioned 7th Day Adventists, they have more missionaries in more places on the globe than any other religion. It takes a lot of cash to sustain efforts to help people in those countries. Most Protestant churches have their own religious schools for their membership AND the community, this is true of SDA, Catholic, Mormon, Lutheran and on and on. Keep in mind, the church is not a building or piece of architecture, a church is people, take the people out of the picture and you removed the church. Guess what? the people's tithe supports the schools in addition to paying the taxes which they ALSO pay to support the public schools.
Here's something else for you so called tax-em-till-they croak "nice people" to chew on. The Jehovah Witnesses which many like to slam and criticise, have their main headquarters on the east coast. At the HQ, which is a large but modest building, there are apartments for all the workers there, the accommodations are spartan, their monthly salary for the president down to the janitor (this is the last I checked over 10 years ago but still relevant) is $50. Most all workers within the organization make a very meager salary even though their room and board is paid. Many work for free as volunteers. The Unions (which gives you an idea of how shameless they are) have tried to infiltrate the JW and start union shops there but there was no incentive cause they all make the same and all are perfectly content to sere God in that capacity ,so the union officials leave with their heads hanging.
I am not putting down anyone who does not have a church membership, I'm just presenting these facts which can be documented, because I feel a very misinformed, ignorant, prejudiced view of all religious faiths has been presented. Of course we can all point to elements within each faith that has made mistakes, but I believe by far, we could do much worse by pulling our tithe and giving it to the government. We already give them close to 20%. And they are the worst mismanaged, the postal system is an example of that.
Oy Vey! My Rabbi is going to have a Shmitzvah! He'll want more offering$$$ at our Temple.
I bet you this is why Romney won't release his taxes like all the other Presidential candidates did. The Mormon Church will figure out he hasn't given as much as he's supposed to.
Wow, thanks for the defense contracts to them.
Wish our Uncle Sam is rich like the tithing of their church.
I <heart> the Mormons.
They're wonderful people, with large loving families who can hold hands and look each other in the eye.
It's the United States' only domestic religion. It's time we had a Mormon president, especially one as supremely qualified as Mitt.
Romney/Ryan 2012
So, I guess god changed his mind in 1978 when they started allowing black people? Yeah, they are really wonderful people to be so behind the times that they continued to discriminate long after the laws of this country said that they couldn't. You're just one of the gullible.
@Porter,
The Mormons claim to be the country's ONLY domestic religion. Yep. But what about Scientology? They're domestic. They're a religion as much as LDS is. I think the Mormons are just cherry-picking definitions because Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists et al are technically Christian and therefore part of a Middle Eastern religion.
Chris, please provide the reference for us all that Mormons make that claim?
Prove it is not hogwash.
Unlike many religions, mormons never had segregated meetings. Also, God has often restricted who could and could not have His priesthood. See Levites.
Religion is such a con. It goes to show people will believe ANYTHING you tell them.
Works for atheism and agnosticism as well. At least with many religions you have something to work for after this life.
And others will believe some unproven theory that science throws their way. A mere 500 years ago, wise people believed very different things about this place. Compared with the thousands of years of humanity (or more), it is unwise to assume so much in just one lifetime.
L.D.S.
Looney
Delusional
Suckers
It is a complete coincidence that MORMON is spelled like MORON ( except with an extra M for MONEY $ )
Ooooo, pretty clever there Jeff N. Did you think of that all by yourself?
@scorny,
No, it was whispered in his ear by the Angel Moroni.
.
Jeff & Chris, you want religious people to accept what you feel to be right, yes?
And you behave like this?!?
You two are certifiable!!!
No one you mistreat like this will accept the lifestyle you wish to live. They may tolerate you as a person because Jesus has commanded it, but guys, they are definintely not going to accept your bad behavior.
Did they factor into their calculations that only about half of active Mormons pay tithing? Doubt it, or the numbers wouldn't be so inflated. Besides, what's it to ya? Why all this interest in other people's money and what they do with it? That's kinda weird.
Because religions want a say in how government is run... without paying taxes on their income.
HolyChrist
Because religions want a say in how government is run... without paying taxes on their income.
---- So do unions and environmental groups. Where's the outcry for that??
You KiddenMe: " Why all this interest in other people's money and what they do with it?" Ha, kind of like gay marriage. Why all the interest in other people's lives that don't directly effect you? And interesting you should use that example when the Mormons were the biggest financial backers of Proposition 8. They don't want you in their personal lives but they sure as hell want to control everyone elses!!!
They did take into consideration that only roughly half tithe.
Interesting that they don't seem as concerned with healthcare or education as other faiths.
And, no matter what they claim about being Christian, their teachings are radically different from Christ's. I don't recall his mentioning other planets as human destinations after death, for instance.
YKM?, from what I have been told the number of full tithe payers in the Church is just over 30%. That is also about the number of Church members that actually practise the faith in their lives.
Mike, if you do not want religions to participate in public forum, then keep morality out of it! Once you put morality up for the vote, all religions of any stripe have an obligation to be part of the process. Keep politics in the elections and keep morality off the ballot.
We would have an incredibly small government if all men behaved morally Mike. It is when persons want to hide and/or excuse their immoral behavior/desires, then government must grow to address such problems. The next time you want to cheat, steal, lie, commit sexual sin, etc., remember you are contributing to big government and the deficit!
Does morality have anything to do with homosexual adults falsifying documents to enter military service or academies? Does it have anything to do with straight officers and senior enlisted men also falsifying documents to avoid or hide someones homosexuality when it was not a acceptable standard. Case in point. Article on a female Colonel promoted to Brigadier General with the help from her wife/husband. One would have to conclude there was a 20 plus year coverup.
HC, you really should check your facts. Some religions may want to have a say in gov't but the Mormons, as a Church, take no sides. There are democrat Mormons, Harry Reid, Republican Mormons, Mitt Romney, and I'm sure there are independent Mormons, just don't know who they are. The Church does get involved when a moral issue is involved, such as CA's prop 8, and the members are encouraged to get involved. Contrary to popular belief, however, the LDS Church does not donate money to one cause or the other, individual members may donate but not money from Church.
@Yank-957120: And what do these incidents have to do with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
The next day. It has to do with your comment on Morality. Telling the truth Living the Code Honor Standing up for the right way not accepting fraud as a standard
Again Yank, what do these incidents have to do with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
Are you accusing the Church of doing these acts?
$7 billion in profits annually? Wow. When is their IPO and how can I get in on it?
Let's cut to the chase! Does anyone know the NET WORTH of the Mormon Church???
I want to know charles...
They have more money than the flying spaghetti monster that's for sure.
Why Charles?
Do you think you are entitled to some of it?
Seriously man, why do you feel you have the right and/or need to know?
Their church is their business, not ours. They live clean moral lives and have a longer life expectancy than the over all population of this country. Please leave them in peace to pursue God as they see fit.
$7B in untaxes dollars, yet religions want a say in how the government is run? No.
Common error HC. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not want to run government, not at all. It just wants government to stay out of morality is all.
If you bother to notice HC, you will see the Church only speaks out publically about issues of morality and never endorses a political candidate. Members of the Church might endorse some poltician here or there, but if you bother to take a look, the Church itself does not.
In fact, everytime there is an election, the First Presidency of the Church sends out a letter advising candidates to not claim that the Church endorses them, for the members to not use Church meetinghouses and facilities to do so and for politics to not be addressed from the pulpit.
Granted, if an issue of moral, not political, value is placed into the public arena, then the Church will act. ONLY in cases of morality!!! The Church refuses to be political, but it has an obligation, like any other religious organization, to be moral.
In my area, I'm told they actually had pictues of Bush/Cheney in some Baptists churches during the election years. Telling everyone to vote for them as Bush was a good Christian. So some churches are endorsing politicial candidates. And look at the mess this country is in now. Religion and politics are mixed, lots of hate and lots of lie. Americans have forgotten how to live in peace and harmony.
A woman was playing golf when she took a big swing and fell. The party waiting behind her was a group from the White House that included Obama. Obama quickly stepped forward and helped her to her feet. She thanked him and started to leave, when he said, "I'm President Obama and I hope you'll vote for me this November." She laughed and quickly said, "I fell on my ass, not my head!"
I know this has no bearing, but I just saw it and it amused me, so F off
I don't get it. Oh wait i think you accidentally typed Obama where Romney was suppose to go. I get it now!!! LOL!! Hilarious.
commonsensedude-1080861, If the woman in your story is a Mitt Romney backer, she should have just kept her mouth closed....seeing that if she fell on her ass, she probably crushed her brain.
Very interesting article, however, the numbers crunched determining that mormons in the US would give more based on income may be incorrect as Canadian average household income is over $70,000 () and US average household income is under $50,000 - with the dollars basically at par now, this math is definitely a bit off. Nonetheless, fantastic article.
CS dude, I think it was funny. Have told it several times and still gonna vote for Obama. Guess I fell on my head!