Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When He Stopped Believing [Mormon exodus underway]
Lds.org (Ensign) ^ | July 2012 | Name Withheld

Posted on 08/05/2012 12:37:13 PM PDT by Colofornian

I never thought it would be me. Yet there I was, sitting across the bed from my husband while he told me that he no longer had a testimony that the gospel was true.

...my husband just didn’t believe in the gospel anymore. He didn’t even know if God really existed.

SNIP

This wasn’t supposed to happen to me—not my husband, not my marriage. In my naiveté, when I had read or heard of accounts where a spouse turned away from the Church, I thought, “Thank goodness that would never happen to our temple marriage...."

...Despite the abundance of spiritual experiences that we had shared since our courtship, the daily personal and couple prayers, the faithful fulfillment of every calling, full tithes, generous fast offerings...it was gone. My husband admitted that he no longer believed. He had no desire to attend church beyond helping me with the kids. And he no longer wanted to pay tithing...

...The one desire I had maintained stronger than any other in my life was to have an eternal marriage...I had done everything I could in my life to live worthily, to marry with unmistakable surety, to keep my covenants, to attend the temple, and to dedicate my life and my home to the Lord. Would Heavenly Father really deny me the righteous desire I longed for the most, when I had done everything He asked to attain it?

SNIP

Initially, I was upset that I had been deprived of the spiritual blessings I had sought so diligently to obtain....the opportunity to seek a celestial marriage is still right in front of me...I have realized that either I can focus on what my husband’s choices have taken from our temple marriage, or I can strive even more to develop a celestial relationship with him...

(Excerpt) Read more at lds.org ...


TOPICS: Ministry/Outreach; Other non-Christian; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: apostasy; celestialmarriage; lds; mormonism
This is similar to a Salon article posted: See But I’m a good Mormon wife: Sean and I had the perfect life. Then his faith started to crumble...

There were NUMEROUS comments to the fact that Salon published that piece...I wonder if those same posters will come on here to complain that the Mormon church is publishing pieces about people leaving their church???

Here's a thread from Saturday -- also about Mormons finding conflict within their church about their beliefs: Different takes on Mormon faith from Republican rivals [Mormon exodus underway]

*************************

From the official Lds church publication: ...the opportunity to seek a celestial marriage is still right in front of me; ...I have realized that either I can focus on what my husband’s choices have taken from our temple marriage, or I can strive even more to develop a celestial relationship with him...

How important is it for a Mormon woman to have a "celestial marriage?"

Well, per Mormonism, 'tis the very difference between living forever in the presence of Heavenly Father -- or not.
'Tis the very difference between living forever as husband and wife -- or not.
'Tis the very difference between living as a goddess and god managing your own planet -- or not.
'Tis the very difference between living forever with your children, grand-children, great grand-children, etc. -- or not.
'Tis the very difference of giving birth to billions of spirit children (what Lds call "eternal increase") on your own planet -- or not.

Don't believe me? (Then review the quotes in the next post)

For a related post, see what Mormon official teachings say about unmarrieds: The Latter-day Saint Concept of Marriage [Unmarrieds 'not whole...complete' - per Mitt's profs]:

'...the unmarried person is NOT a whole person, is NOT complete'


1 posted on 08/05/2012 12:37:21 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
This tears it.

I am obviously morally obligated to vote for the Muslim.

2 posted on 08/05/2012 12:39:51 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the collectivists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

A FEW of the 'Conditions' Mormons Place on Living Forever in Heavenly Father's Presence

Condition #1: Be Married [Singles need not apply****]

Sources:

* "To be exalted in the highest degree and continue eternally in family relationships, we MUST enter into 'the new and everlasting covenant of marriage' and be true to that covenant. In other words, temple marriage is a requirement for obtaining the highest degree of celestial glory." (True to the Faith, p. 93, 2004)

* "Brethren, please remember: The highest degree of glory is available to you only through that order of the priesthood linked to the new and everlasting covenant of marriage" (Lds "apostle" Russell M. Nelson, "Honoring the Priesthood" Ensign (Conference Edition), May 1993, p. 40

* "LDS doctrine teaches that there is a Mother in Heaven as well as a Father, that Eve's eating of the forbidden fruit furthered God's Plan of Salvation (see Fall of Adam), that women must perform certain essential priesthood ordinances in the temple, and that the highest order of the priesthood and the complete blessings of exaltation are available only to the married couple; neither can enter exaltation without the other" (Encylopedia of Mormonism 2:490)

In other words, being that "exaltation" & the "celestial" kingdom are the ONLY degrees of glory in which a person can live together with Heavenly Father

Condition #2: Uphold your husband as your 'Lord'

Source: "Do you uphold your husband before God as your lord? 'What!--my husband to be my lord?' I ask, Can you get into the celestial kingdom without him? Have any of you been there? You will remember that you never got into the celestial kingdom without the aid of your husband...No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband; and if not, somebody will receive her as a servant" (Lds "apostle" Erastus Snow, Oct. 4, 1857, JoD 5:291)

Condition #3: Treat Eternal monogamy and Eternal polygamy as 'one of the most important doctrines revealed to man in any age of the world' -- IF you want to become 'gods,' that is

Lds “prophet” Joseph F. Smith:
*...this doctrine of the eternal union of the husband and wife and of plural marriage, is one of the most important doctrines ever revealed to man in any age of the world. Without it man would come to a full stop; without it we never could be exalted to associate with and become gods neither could we attain to the power of eternal increase... (Joseph F. Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 21, pp. 9-10)

Lds "prophet" Joseph Fielding Smith (a different "prophet" than Joseph F. Smith):
* So if you want to enter into exaltation and become as God, that is a son of God or a daughter of God, and receive a fulness of the kingdom, then you have got to abide in his law-not merely the law of marriage but all that pertains to the new and everlasting covenant... (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. II, p. 63)

Why the **** in Condition #1 sub-title above?

Well, to help answer that, see this a related post where you can see what Mormon official teachings say about unmarrieds: The Latter-day Saint Concept of Marriage [Unmarrieds 'not whole...complete' - per Mitt's profs]:

'...the unmarried person is NOT a whole person, is NOT complete'

Thruout the 1960s, Hugh B. Brown was part of the ultimate 'First Presidency of Mormon hierarchy...Where Brown described unmarrieds as above

In July 2011, the LDS Ensign edited out those key dozen words in this graph: "The Latter-day Saints believe that in order to attain the best in life and the greatest happiness in this world and for the next, men and women must be married in the temple for time and eternity. Without the sealing ordinances of temple marriage, man cannot achieve a godlike stature or receive a fulness of joy. …"

So where did Brown -- one of the three highest-ranking Lds hierarchists thruout the 1960s -- specifically address "unmarrieds" there?

The original paragraph was published by Bookcraft, Inc. (Salt Lake City) in 1960, when Brown wrote "You and Your Marriage"...One chapter (pp. 12-19 of that book) focused on "The Latter-Day Saint Concept of Marriage." This chapter was later lifted to be included as a chapter in a 1968 book published by Deseret Book Company, owned by the Mormon church. That book, The Latter-day Saint Family: A Book of Selected Readings, was compiled/edited by Dr. Blaine R. Porter, Professor of Child Development and Family Relationships @ BYU. [Porter was a prof during the few years that Mitt Romney attended BYU]

When you turn to p. 198 of the book published by Deseret and edited by BYU prof Porter, we see the dozen words that the Ensign editors edited out in 2011: Allow me to cite the entire graph as published by Brown in 1960 and by Deseret Book Company in 1968 [the missing dozen words are bold-faced]: The Latter-day Saints believe that in order to attain the best in life and the greatest happiness in this world and for the next, men and women must be married in the temple for time and eternity. Without the sealing ordinances of temple marriage, man cannot achieve a godlike stature or receive a fulness of joy because the unmarried person is NOT a whole person, is NOT complete."

Do you hear that unmarrieds? Do you hear that singles?

The Mormon church was teaching throughout the 1960s (1960-1968) that unmarrieds were NOT whole people...NOT complete people!!!!

***************************************

Since Lds teach about '3 degrees of glory,' how do we know Lds teachings allow only the top degree to live with Heavenly Father'?

Lds 'scripture' Doctrines & Covenants excerpted verses from chapter 76:

Note as you read about "church of the Firstborn": Lds says this title applies ONLY to the mainstream Lds church...Per both D&C 1:30 and this note by a BYU professor:

“Exaltation is the greatest of all the gifts and attainments possible. It is available ONLY in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom and is RESERVED for members of the Church of the Firstborn. This exalted status, called eternal life, is available to be received by a man and a wife. It means not only living in God’s presence, but receiving power to do as God does, including the power to bear children after the resurrection.” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 2:479)

Doctrines & Covenants 76:
54 They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.
55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things—
56 They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;
57 And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son.
58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God—
59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.
60 And they shall overcome all things.
...62 These shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever.
... 92 And thus we saw the glory of the celestial, which excels in all things—where God, even the Father, reigns upon his throne forever and ever;
...94 They who dwell in his presence are the church of the Firstborn
...95 And he makes them equal [to Himself] in power, and in might, and in dominion

NOTE: Clarification: The following verses are about the so-called Mormon "Terrestrial" world -- the supposed "middle" degree of glory where honest Christians and the like are supposed to be able to go...note that they won't receive "the fulness of the Father" -- which Mormon general authorities teach means "never" being able to live in Heavenly Father's presence:

D&C 76:
...71 And again, we saw the terrestrial world, and behold and lo, these are they who are of the terrestrial, whose glory differs from that of the church of the Firstborn who have received the fulness of the Father
...77 These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.

NOTE: Clarification: The following verses are about the so-called Mormon 'Telestial' world -- the supposed "lowest" degree of glory...in which consists people sent to a temporary "hell" -- a sort of spirit prison...these people will supposedly be offered the Mormon "gospel" by spirit missionaries as a sort of "get out of eternal jail" card: D&C 76:
...102 Last of all, these all are they who will not be gathered with the saints, to be caught up unto the church of the Firstborn, and received into the cloud.
103 These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie.
104 These are they who suffer the wrath of God on earth.
105 These are they who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire.
106 These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet...
...109 But behold, and lo, we saw the glory and the inhabitants of the telestial world, that they were as innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven, or as the sand upon the seashore...
...112 And they shall be servants of the Most High; but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end. .

How have Lds general authorities interpreted D&C 76?

8th Lds 'prophet' George Albert Smith:
"There are some people who have supposed that if we are quickened telestial bodies that eventually, throughout the ages of eternity, we will continue to progress until we will find our place in the celestial kingdom, but the scriptures and revelations of God have said that those who are quickened telestial bodies CANNOT COME where God and Christ dwell, worlds without end." (Conference Report, October 1945, p.172)

'ONLY THE CELESTIAL IS THE KINGDOM OF GOD' -- BYU prof

BYU Prof Daniel H. Ludlow, A Companion to Your Study of the New Testament, p. 311:
"There are, of course, three kingdoms of glory to which resurrected persons will go--the celstial, terrestrial, and telestial...Of these three, ONLY the celestial is the kingdom of God; it is the kingdom RESERVED for the saints who obey the laws and ordinances of the gospel. Great hosts of persons will go to the other kingdoms and hence will not attain salvation in the full gospel sense."

Ludlow also addressed this in editing the Encyclopedia of Mormonism 1:368: "The Celestial Kingdom is RESERVED for those who receive a testimony of...
[the Mormon]
...Jesus and fully embrace the [Mormon] gospel; that is, they have faith in Jesus Christ, repent of their sins, are baptized by immersion by one having authority
[only in the Mormon church],
receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands
[only Mormon priesthood hands],
and endure in righteousness. All who attain this kingdom 'shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever (D&C 76:62)."

3 posted on 08/05/2012 12:44:02 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Yeah, /sarc.

Two candidates with two false views of god. The one who’s buddies fly planes into buildings and believe their god isn’t coming back until they kill everyone who doesn’t believe what they do, isn’t ever going to get my vote.

It is a lesson as to why a person’s worldview matters, though.


4 posted on 08/05/2012 12:45:07 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

(Yeah, you were one of those complaining about the Salon source for a similar article last time...go ahead...be consistent...start tearing into the Mormon church as well...be sure to comment about the Mormon church’s “exclusion” like you did Salon)


5 posted on 08/05/2012 12:46:21 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All
From the article: ...my husband just didn’t believe in the gospel anymore. He didn’t even know if God really existed.

Not only is the "Mormon gospel" NOT good news (it's legalism thru and thru), but for you Mormons who have stopped believing in the Mormon god...have you ever thought that perhaps it was the Mormon vision of the Mormon god that turned you off to him?

(Perhaps the problem isn't simply with you)

I mean...I'm an "athiest" when it comes to believing in the Mormon god as well...

Why should we believe in...
...one god who is but among thousands/millions/billions? [When even the Book of Mormon never taught that?]
...a flesh-and-body man living on another planet (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321) who got the "god job" -- as Lds teach that a "council of gods" appointed the "god of this planet."
...a god who was ne'er divine going back to eternal past?
...a god who even sinned?
...a creature-god who "died" due to his sin?

In comparison, have you examined closely THE Ultimate God of the Bible?

(I'll document some of the above in posts that follow)

6 posted on 08/05/2012 12:47:56 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Wow, sounds just like Mother Theresa’s problems.


7 posted on 08/05/2012 12:48:10 PM PDT by SaxxonWoods (....The days are long, but the years are short.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Documenting: ...a flesh-and-body man living on another planet (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321) who got the "god job" -- as Lds teach that a "council of gods" appointed the "god of this planet."

Joseph Smith excerpt #1:
"In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it." (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 5, 1844)

Joseph Smith excerpt #2:
"In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through--Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed ONE God for us..." (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 372)

According to Smith's worldview, "the heads of the Gods appointed one God for us." [Why, how nice, Mitt: You worship a god chosen by a bureaucracy at a committee meeting.]

8 posted on 08/05/2012 12:49:26 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All
More documentation on WHO the God is of Mitt Romney that will 'help' him rule the free world:

From the OFFICIAL Mormon teachings about Christianity: “In the early centuries of the Christian era...Many men...sought the creation process to make a God which all could accept....they put together an incomprehensible God idea” (Kimball, Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 425).

Oh...so Christianity "changed" the idea that God and men are of the "same race?" That the Mormon god was "saved?" And that if he needed to be saved, that would mean the Mormon god was a "sinner?"

“God and man are of the same race, differing only in their degrees of advancement” (Lds “apostle” John A. Widtsoe, Rational Theology, 1915, p. 61)

”According to revelation, however, he is a personal Being, a holy and exalted Man, a glorified, resurrected Personage having a tangible body of flesh and bones, an anthropomorphic Entity, the personal Father of the spirits of all men.” (Bruce R. Mconkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 250)

”The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this Church.” (Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, 1997, p. 34)

”We offend again in our doctrine that men are of the same race with the divine personages we call Gods. Great stress is laid upon the idea that we believe that 'as man is, God once was, and as God now is, man may become.' The world usually shouts 'blasphemy' and 'sacrilege' at one when he talks of such a possibility” (B.H. Roberts, 1992, Defense of The Faith and The Saints 2:570)

”The Father is a glorified, perfected, resurrected, exalted man who worked out his salvation by obedience to the same laws he has given to us so that we may do the same.” (Lds “apostle” Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, p. 64)

“When you can thus feel, then you may begin to think that you can find out something about God, and begin to learn who he is. He is our Father—the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted Being.” (Brigham Young, Oct. 8, 1859, JoD, 7:333)

”It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God has been once a finite being; and yet we are not in such close communion with him as many have supposed,” (BY, Oct. 8, 1859, JoD, 7:333)

“The idea that the Lord our God is not a personage of tabernacle is entirely a mistaken notion. He was once a man.” (BY, Feb. 23, 1862, JoD, 9:286)

“What, is it possible that the Father of Heights, the Father of our spirits, could reduce himself and come forth like a man? Yes, he was once a man like you and I are and was once on an earth like this...He had his father and his mother and he has been exalted through his faithfulness, and he is beomce Lord of all.” (The Essential BY, p. 138)

“Knowing what we know concerning God our Father-- that he is a personal being; that he has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as our own; that he is an exalted and glorified being; that he was once a man and dwelt on an earth – and knowing that this knowledge was had by many of the ancients, should we be surprised to find legends and myths throughout the cultures of the earth concerning gods who have divine power but human attributes and passions?” (BYU professor Robert L. Millet, “The Eternal Gospel,” Ensign, July 1996, p. 53)

”Joseph Smith did in fact teach that God is a Man of Holiness, an exalted and glorified man.” (BYU professor Robert L., Millet, The Mormon Faith: Understanding Restored Christianity, p. 169)

”Joseph Smith's purpose is to show that the Bible teaches that our Father in Heaven was once mortal, as we are.” (BYU professor Emeritus Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig Ostler, Revelations of the Restoration, p. 1087)

9 posted on 08/05/2012 12:51:23 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All
If you read some of Lds leaders' quotes in post #9...
...you realize...

The Lds church teaches that Heavenly Father was once a man...a mere creature...
...lived on another planet...
...sinned...
...died...
...got the "god job" for this planet

For more discussion on the Mormon presentation of "God as sinner," see:
* God Never Sinned – He Never Was A Wretch Like Me [Mormonism - Open]
* The Apostasy [What Lds believe re: Christians: Label us 'apostates' like Islam calls us 'infidels'] [See especially posts #3, #4, #6 about how the Mormons focus on a distinct "god"]

Did God die before Jesus Christ was incarnated?

(Joseph Smith said "yes"):

“I learned a testimony concerning Abraham, and he reasoned concerning the Gods of heaven. '...Intelligences exist one above another, so that there is no end to them.' If Abraham reasoned thus--If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly. Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it. I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before? He laid down His life, and took it up the SAME as His Father had done before." (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 1938, p. 373)

10 posted on 08/05/2012 12:54:50 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Well said.


11 posted on 08/05/2012 12:55:53 PM PDT by rlmorel ("The safest road to Hell is the gradual one." Screwtape (C.S. Lewis))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man; rlmorel; All
Two candidates with two false views of god. The one who’s buddies fly planes into buildings and believe their god isn’t coming back until they kill everyone who doesn’t believe what they do, isn’t ever going to get my vote. It is a lesson as to why a person’s worldview matters, though.

I heartily agree on your worldview comment.

I also highlighted 11 FREEPER threads from '08 to '12 focusing on Obama's links to Islam (I put that on a Spring thread)

Two candidates with two false views of god.

It's more than just false views of God. It's false gods who wind up controlling these POTUS candidates.

Remember, 'twas these very SAME false gods who controlled Japan, Italy, and Germany during the 1930s and at least the first half of the 1940s.

In that sense, we as Americans can no longer look down upon the Japanese, the Italians, or the Germans who acquiesced or actively sanctioned placing emperor-gods (Japan), fascists (Italians), or madmen-fascist dictators (Germany) into place.

Americans are about to openly sanction placing these false gods at the helm of the power of the so-called "free" world...

These candidates are no "Hitlers" by ANY stretch of the imagination, but the Japanese had emperor-gods well before they launched their wars of the 1930s (vs. China) or 1940s (U.S., etc.) [These emperors were indeed openly acknowledged as "Divine"]

And now we have a man who falls into the camp of his father's cousin -- Lds "First President" Marion Romney -- who taught: "The truth is … man is a child of God— a God in embryo." -- Marion G. Romney, in Conference Report, April 1973, p. 136; or Ensign, July 1973, p. 14.

Romney believes HE is just as divine as the Japanese emperor did once upon a time.

And here many Christian voters know all this...and yet are willing to openly endorse these false gods at the helm of our nation.

As 2013 unfolds, everybody duck!!!! (I've heard God isn't too keen on His people endorsing rivals as competing gods to Him...something about "idolatry" and all that)

12 posted on 08/05/2012 1:25:36 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: E. Pluribus Unum

This has NOTHING to do with the Mormon faith!

If you are not working daily to strengthen your faith, you will lose your faith.


14 posted on 08/05/2012 2:07:56 PM PDT by G Larry (Progressives are Regressive because their objectives devolve to the lowest common denominator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: E. Pluribus Unum

E-PU,
You are “making it personal”. Not allowed on Religion Forum. Heads up.


16 posted on 08/05/2012 2:35:16 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ("I'm comfortable with a Romney win." - Pres. Jimmy Carter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

MORMONISM! Got it? If you want to talk about Islam post a thread, good god almighty stick to the subject.
Religion Forum = religious discussion.


17 posted on 08/05/2012 2:37:32 PM PDT by roylene (Salvation the great Gift of Grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

To: roylene
Yes, Ma'am.

Please don't hurt me.

19 posted on 08/05/2012 2:39:42 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the collectivists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Nope, didn't follow you. Just wanted to see what Colofornian was up to again, and there you were kvetching away.

Now that's creepy. Don't you let anyone say something about Mormonism without you sticking your nose into it?

22 posted on 08/05/2012 3:17:27 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Nope, didn't follow you. Just wanted to see what Colofornian was up to again, and there you were kvetching away.

Now that's creepy. Don't you let anyone say something about Mormonism without you sticking your nose into it?

23 posted on 08/05/2012 3:17:41 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Is this on the religious forum?

Is the aim to point out Romney’s religious heresy?


24 posted on 08/05/2012 3:32:41 PM PDT by Kevmo ( FRINAGOPWIASS: Free Republic Is Not A GOP Website. It's A Socon Site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
Yes...when a Mormon wife talks about her Mormon husband giving up the Mormon religion...and it's published on the Mormon Web site...it's on the RF.

Mormonism WAS heretical prior to Romney's run...
...Mormonism is STILL heretical during Romney's run...
...If Romney is elected, it STILL will be heretical...
...If Romney loses, guess what? It STILL will be heretical.

I posted on Mormonism's heresies BEFORE Romney's run...
...I actively posted on Mormonism's heresies DURING Romney's 2007 & early 2008 run...
...I actively posted on Mormonism's heresies when Romney was NOT in campaign mode (Feb 2008-->Latter 2010)
...I have actively posted on Mormonism's heresies when Romney has been in campaign mode since then...
...God willing, whether Romney wins or loses, I will continue to express components about Mormonism in the venues available to me...

25 posted on 08/05/2012 3:39:53 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

What a tragic, paralyzing mishmash of legalism. No grace, no hope. Very sad.


26 posted on 08/05/2012 3:42:48 PM PDT by Psalm 144 (Voodoo Republicans. Don't read their lips. Watch their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

I agree. Mormonism is heretical. I was attacked for this in the 2008 race. Any presidential candidate who cannot wrestle free from such a verifiable heresy is thoroughly tainted. Besides that, he’s a lying, baby-killing statist.


27 posted on 08/05/2012 3:45:33 PM PDT by Kevmo ( FRINAGOPWIASS: Free Republic Is Not A GOP Website. It's A Socon Site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Don't you let anyone say something about Mormonism without you sticking your nose into it?

[CITATION NEEDED]

28 posted on 08/05/2012 4:57:38 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the collectivists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

“muawiyah made it personal. I was merely responding to his personal attack. Kind of selective in our taking offense, aren’t we? “

Oh, OK. As long as someone else made you do it, I’m sure the Religion Mod won’t mind that at all... :-)


29 posted on 08/05/2012 7:06:11 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ("I'm comfortable with a Romney win." - Pres. Jimmy Carter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum; muawiyah; aMorePerfectUnion
This thread is posted in the Religion Forum. The main guideline here is to "discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal."

Also, when one person in a sidebar has been warned - all posters in the sidebar should consider themselves warned. The principle is that "two wrongs do not make a right."

Click on my profile page for more guidelines to the Religion Forum.

30 posted on 08/05/2012 8:22:59 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

Nobody cares anyway.


31 posted on 08/05/2012 8:26:33 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the collectivists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Sounded like a very good story to me, it don,t matter what religion it is called it is the faith that counts, this woman knows what God expects from her.


Titus ch 2
3
The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

4
That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

5
To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.


A wife like that is worth her weight in gold regardless of the religion she believes in.


32 posted on 08/06/2012 7:52:28 AM PDT by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ravenwolf
Sounded like a very good story to me, it don,t matter what religion it is called it is the faith that counts, this woman knows what God expects from her.

It's the stuff that MORMONism 'expects' from her; that is driving her nuts.

33 posted on 08/06/2012 11:05:34 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Sounded like a very good story to me, it don,t matter what religion it is called it is the faith that counts, this woman knows what God expects from her.

It’s the stuff that MORMONism ‘expects’ from her; that is driving her nuts.


;Get back in the kitchen woman;


34 posted on 08/06/2012 11:29:58 AM PDT by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ravenwolf
...it don,t matter what religion it is called it is the faith that counts...

But, no matter how strong a person's 'faith' is; if it is placed on the wrong thing, it won't be effective at all.

35 posted on 08/06/2012 7:45:16 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

...it don,t matter what religion it is called it is the faith that counts...

But, no matter how strong a person’s ‘faith’ is; if it is placed on the wrong thing, it won’t be effective at all.


You are right, my meaning was that we will be judged as individuals, not because of the name on the Church that we attend or don,t attend, our faith has to be in Jesus as there is no other name.


36 posted on 08/07/2012 6:23:12 AM PDT by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Faith is both a strong and a delicate thing. At the outset, if we are honest with ourselves we recognize that our religious faith is just that: FAITH. We have no proof of what we believe, of course, or else it would not be faith.

My faith is strongest in the most elementary aspects of what I believe. I believe that there is God. Even this is a bridge of faith too far, but the vast majority believe in at least some Supreme Being. I believe that God is good and fair, and that He desires, but does not force, our love for Him. I believe in Christ as my Savior (and my need for a Savior, perhaps the least challenging faith belief), largely based on the behavior of the apostles and contemporary followers of Christ after His death and resurrection, who underwent severe punishment and deaths for what they believed.

I believe in the Bible, but am not convinced of its literal truth in all aspects. Nevertheless, I believe that all of the Bible has something to teach us.

After that, denominational tenets are sometimes harder to take on faith, and I may be convinced that some are right and some are wrong.

I do believe that if we don’t challenge our faith by examination it can become very weak indeed. That said, I recognize that my faith is MY faith, and others believe otherwise. I may disagree, but I respect their faith (and I expect respect, not compliance, with my faith by others).


37 posted on 08/07/2012 6:59:47 AM PDT by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ravenwolf

All RIGHT!

We be on the same wavelength now!


38 posted on 08/07/2012 8:55:49 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441
Faith is both a strong and a delicate thing. At the outset, if we are honest with ourselves we recognize that our religious faith is just that: FAITH. We have no proof of what we believe, of course, or else it would not be faith.

Unfortunately, there's a few things here that could be inferred by the reader...which sounds like you might be implying the following:

1. That faith is somehow against reason.
2. OR...that faith is somehow a free-floating ethereal thing (outthere somewhere);
3. That the Christian faith somehow falls outside history. (Sorry, but Christ's death and resurrection talks about a man who claimed to be God in time & space -- who died, and whose resurrection would have made "Local News @ Five" had broadcasting been around then)
4. That somehow the testimony that Jesus appeared to about 500 (1 Corinthians 15:6) is irrelevant...the eye-witness testimony is that (a) Jesus visited the apostles (John 21); and (b) for 5-6 weeks popped up to meet/teach from the Mount of Olives, near Bethany (Luke 24:50-51; Acts 1:3-11).

Sorry, NCLaw...but the CHRISTIAN faith is in a person (Jesus Christ). Such faith doesn't stay "bottled up" within a person; it gets transferred. Toward the object of that faith (Jesus Christ). And Jesus is not simply a free-floating divinity "out there" somewhere. Jesus Christ lived and died and rose again in a time-space continuum. We know he was born -- probably 4 B.C...likely about April 25 (NOT Dec. 25)...and died about 33 years later. That means that the Christian faith IS rooted in history. And history can be tested from a variety of angles, most notably the eye-witness history and the consequences of Jesus Christ on the lives of His apostles and eventual followers!

Note what author Kenneth Samples has to say about Jesus' resurrection:

"The story's natural details conform well to what is known historically. Far from being a myth or legend, the report of the empty tomb...
[1]...has a very early date... [meaning it wasn't a tale that simply arose a generation later]
[2]...fits with archaeological data (burial customs, construction of tombs, timing of ceremonial events)...
[3]...and was never challenged, let alone refuted, by the contemporary enemies and critics of Christianity.
[4]In addition, the Jews or Romans could have immediately squashed Christianity by producing Christ's body. The disciples could not have proclaimed a bodily resurrection if the body could be brought forth. [Kenneth Samples, Without a Doubt, Baker books, 2004, p. 138]

What key reports re: the empty tomb am I referencing?
(The following is a paraphrase of Do the Resurrection Accounts Conflict and What Proof is There that Jesus Rose from the Dead? by John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon):
We know Joseph took the body of Christ/wrapped it/placed it in the tomb (Matt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53); and Nicodemus assisted him (John 19:39).
We know Roman soldiers were assigned to guard the tomb (Matt 27:62-66; 28:11-15) @ the request of Jewish leaders (Matt 27:27, 65); early church writers Justin, Tertullian & a few apocryphal accounts also mention this) [You don't post guards to guard an empty tomb, right?].
And we know from history that the penalty for a Roman soldier deserting his post was death (Polybius, among other early historians, noted the strictness of Roman camp discipline).
This place of burial was common knowledge -- observed by both Jesus' friends as well as His enemies (Matt 27:61, 66).
We know the "extremely large" stone (Mark 16:4) put in front of the tomb was marked with a royal seal to safeguard it -- and that these stones weighed 1-2 tons.
We know Jewish authorities didn't question the report of the guards that the tomb was empty (Matt 28:11-15)

"When even your enemies at both the immediate time of the event and for two thousand years afterwards are forced to acknowledge that the tomb was empty, the case for the Resurrection becomes more than credible. Again, no one anywhere at any time ever doubted the empty tomb:
'A.M. Ramsey writes: ...Paul Althaus states that the resurrection 'could not have been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the temptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned.'"
"Paul L. Maier concludes: '...no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove this statement.' (Ankerberg & Weldon, p. 122)

Bottom-line: There's enough historical eyewitness testimony about Jesus' resurrection. (Remember: Eye-witness testimony has been "enough" to send many men to their deaths)

39 posted on 08/07/2012 11:39:32 AM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ravenwolf; Elsie; All
You are right, my meaning was that we will be judged as individuals, not because of the name on the Church that we attend or don,t attend, our faith has to be in Jesus as there is no other name.

Well, allow me to elaborate here...'cause by Jesus' death on the cross, God already judged sin -- and His Son suffered the punishment for that sin.

HENCE, AT LEAST TWO TYPES OF JUDGMENT: One past; One future

The Bible points to at least two types of judgment. One future -- which we will all undergo. Yet based upon John 3:18, 1 John 5:10-13, & 1 Cor. 3:10-15, I can tell you it still won't be the basis for whether a person is granted entrance into heaven.

We need to ask ourselves: What is the basis of whether or how God will forgive our personal sins?

I think we tend to "miss the boat" in misunderstanding two dimensions of judgment: One dimension is our sin nature and our individual acts of sin--including our sins of omission. The other dimension is our works.

We can't exchange the two:

Works don't get us into heaven;
and sin doesn't in and of itself keep us from heaven.

We're ALL sinners;
but not all sinners are trusting Christ to atone for their sin -- hence some, are either trying to work their way into God's eternal presence (like temple Mormons); or, think God will somehow grade on a curve -- also a sort of works-righteousness faulty scheme.

THE PAST JUDGMENT ON THE CROSS FOR OUR SIN

For our sin, Heavenly Father fully judged Jesus on the cross. When Jesus said "It is finished" on the cross, He used a phrase that in His day was a financial phrase meaning, "paid in full." Our debt -- our sin -- was paid in full. If we try to pay for our sin/atonement, Heavenly Father rejects it as being laced with unrighteousness (Is. 64:6).

And as Judge, both the Father and Jesus could claim, “that's double jeopardy” if we try to pay for what Jesus already paid for on the cross.

Jesus solidly reinforced this when He said: 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned ALREADY because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. (John 3:18)

I'm saying that God the Father judged all sin on the cross, which has already occurred. Jesus' righteousness becomes our righteousness by substitution (1 Cor. 1:30), transferred by way of faith & His grace-gift (Eph. 2:8-9). In the 10 Commandments movie, those who were saved were saved by the blood of the Lamb. Yet they still needed to transfer faith that it had salvific power.

THE FUTURE JUDGMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN

But when people talk about God judging the stewardship of our works in the future, they are correct. Note this passage:

By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's WORK. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; HE HIMSELF WILL BE SAVED, but only as one escaping through the flames. (1 Cor. 3:10-15)

Do we see that last sentence? Even if our work is burned up, we can "suffer loss" in heaven -- yet, Paul assures us that "he himself WILL BE saved." (Paul goes on to describe that like somebody pulled out of a burning building at the last second...by Jesus Christ the Deliverer and Rescuer).

So, our works will get quite a "grilling" of judgment from God. But Paul makes it clear in this passage that even when our measured works burn up as nothing -- as God's fiery judgment takes a match to them like fuel, we ourselves "will still be saved." (1 Cor. 3:15)

So the righteousness of Jesus is our free pass into heaven. (1 Cor. 1:30). Entrust your life to Him (that is more than just mouthing a few words). But simultaneously, be prepared that once you get there based solely upon your faith in Christ, that He will take a fine-toothcomb to our works -- and judge them. And that it's possible to still become saved -- and still "suffer loss." (None of us should want to suffer such loss in heaven -- whatever that turns out to be)

May I be so bold as to suggest that perhaps you misunderstand the Christian gospel?

Do you realize right after John 3:16...comes these two verses: 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. (John 3:18-19)

IOW, God already has judged our sin. The verdict has already been rendered...and the punishment was taken out upon Christ on the cross.

That's the Christian gospel: That we don't have to to wonder about our eventual destination. 1 John 5:11-13 also expresses how one can have assurance of salvation. (And in John 3:36 and 5:24, Jesus expresses eternal life as something we have -- present tense -- not will have...future tense). The reason for that is because when Jesus Christ defined eternal life, He defined it as “knowing” (a relationship) between His Father and Himself and His people.

We need to ask ourselves: What is the basis of whether or how God will forgive our personal sins?

I think we tend to "miss the boat" in misunderstanding two dimensions of judgment: One dimension is our sin nature and our individual acts of sin--including our sins of omission. The other dimension is our works.

We can't exchange the two. For our sin, Heavenly Father fully judged Jesus on the cross (as I said; this is past tense). When Jesus said "It is finished" on the cross, He used a phrase that in His day was a financial phrase meaning, "paid in full." Our debt -- our sin -- was paid in full. If we try to pay for our sin/atonement, Heavenly Father rejects it as being laced with unrighteousness (Is. 64:6).

And as Judge, both the Father and Jesus could claim, “that's double jeopardy” if we try to pay for what Jesus already paid for on the cross.

But when people talk about God judging the stewardship of our works in the future, they are correct. Note this passage:

By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's WORK. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; HE HIMSELF WILL BE SAVED, but only as one escaping through the flames. (1 Cor. 3:10-15)

Do we see that last sentence? Even if our work is burned up, we can "suffer loss" in heaven -- yet, Paul assures us that "he himself WILL BE saved." (Paul goes on to describe that like somebody pulled out of a burning building at the last second...by Jesus Christ the Deliverer and Rescuer).

So, our works will get quite a "grilling" of judgment from God -- future tense. But Paul makes it clear in this passage that even when our measured works burn up as nothing -- as God's fiery judgment takes a match to them like fuel, we ourselves "will still be saved." (1 Cor. 3:15)

So the righteousness of Jesus is our free pass into heaven. (1 Cor. 1:30). Entrust your life to Him (that is more than just mouthing a few words). But simultaneously, be prepared that once you get there based solely upon your faith in Christ, that He will take a fine-toothcomb to our works -- and judge them. And that it's possible to still become saved -- and still "suffer loss."

(None of us should want to suffer such loss in heaven -- whatever that turns out to be). If anybody's shooting for trying to show God how "worthy" they are, they are worshiping the wrong God. (The word "worthy" is tied to "worship"; and we are not to either worship or "worthship" ourselves). Our value and worth was shown by Jesus at the cross. He died for us. We are only "worthy" in Him. 'Tis NONE of it is of ourselves.

On top of that, Jesus says we need to be perfect (Matt. 5:48). And if we break one part of the law, we are guilty of all of it (book of James). Therefore we fall short. Our self-worth is never enough. Our only hope is to have our sin be judged according to the perfection of Jesus Christ, which is substituted on our behalf. That's why Paul says Jesus is OUR Righteousness. (1 Cor. 1:30)

40 posted on 08/07/2012 11:50:18 AM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441
Faith is both a strong and a delicate thing. At the outset, if we are honest with ourselves we recognize that our religious faith is just that: FAITH. We have no proof of what we believe, of course, or else it would not be faith.

A short way of sizing up my last post: THE KEY CLAIMS of Christianity -- are things that had the Jerusalem Gazette been around circa 30 A.D. -- would have covered: The death on the cross of Jesus Christ; the empty tomb & claims of His resurrection while appearing to around 500 individuals...& claims of His ascension.

That's why Christianity focuses on the "Good News" -- the literal meaning of the word "Gospel." It's NEWS...not just "Good dogma based upon blind faith."

(And that was what I was addressing...the subtle insinuation that our faith is somehow "blind" & operating only in the dark)

The apostle Paul told the Corinthian church that if Jesus wasn't resurrected, that we were still in our sin and to be pitied among all men as having an empty faith.

No resurrection, no Christian faith.

No incarnational Jesus, no Christian faith.

41 posted on 08/07/2012 12:09:52 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

I agree with the points raised in our posts. That said, while the arguments and evidence work for you and me, if they were that undeniable all thinking people would be Christians. When humans are involved manipulation of facts is possible.


42 posted on 08/07/2012 1:07:59 PM PDT by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441
That said, while the arguments and evidence work for you and me, if they were that undeniable all thinking people would be Christians. When humans are involved manipulation of facts is possible.

Well, often have you heard of strong prosecutions by the D.A. resulting in either hung juries (comparable to spiritual agnostics & those who "rule against" the "conviction" of the Holy Spirit) or even acquittals???

43 posted on 08/07/2012 2:39:09 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

May I be so bold as to suggest that perhaps you misunderstand the Christian gospel?


You might be right, but if i knew it better than the back of my hand i would still most likely say the same thing, my folks sent me to school to be a wit, but i only went half way.

But what i was saying is that religion has nothing to do with it, God knows if he is in our our hearts or not.

As for the things he told us to do like do unto others as you would have them do unto you, which is the works of faith and covers most of what he told us also has nothing to do with religion.


44 posted on 08/07/2012 4:08:16 PM PDT by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson