Posted on 06/10/2007 7:24:29 PM PDT by Reaganesque
Now try real hard to understand this - etc., etc.Your contribution was all about me, which is odd because the thread, as I understand it, is about the Mormon confession and its relation to Christianity. Please forgive me, but I refuse to allow you to bait me into yet another futile flame war. So I will try, again, to gently and respectfully lead you back to the question at hand. Once again: Mormonism is inconsistent with normative Christianity as it is inconsistent with the canons and creeds issued by the primitive church, e.g. the canon of scripture, The Nicene Creed, The Apostles' Creed etc. It is on these grounds that I would say that the Mormons are not Christians, in the same sense that Manicheans or Ebionites are not Christians.
To the Mormon church, anyone not Mormon is a heretic.
I give you Padre Hidalgo.
He instigated the Mexican War of Independence against the Spanish oppressors. He was captured, tried by the Inquisition and found guilty of heresy and treason.
After execution by firing squad, they decapitated him and stuck his head on the wall.
Think George Washington falling into the hands of the British army.
I consider the dude a saint. (Padre means "Father", he was a priest.)
You sweet, lovable heretic, you...
... He was captured, tried by the Inquisition and found guilty of heresy and treason ...Tragic. Lots of Jews and Muslims got tortured or executed by the same institution after the Reconquista. But has anyone advanced the claim that Mormons are not good people? Or that Mormons cannot be heros? Or that Mormons are not great Americans? I think Mormons are great. I think Mormons rock. This world be a better world were there more of them. But are they Christian? Well, no, I would argue. This would be a different question.
I'm also bright enough to recognize when someone is avoiding a question by tossing out something similar.
Since JS received a revelation from GOD completeing, correcting and restoring all the perceived errors in 'christianity', one would think that GOD, in His infinite wisdom, would have eliminated the bigotry found in the earlier versions.
I guess He didn't want to; or else is waiting to deliver more stuff in a future pronounceation from the LDS' living prophet.
Agreed, but I don't want someone who falls for such wacky ideas making decisions in the White House.
Agreed, but I don't want someone who falls for such wacky ideas making decisions in the White House.I believe that you get closer to God when you separate milk and meat. In fact, we have 2 sets of dishes, and 2 sets of pots and pans, 1 for dairy foods, 1 for meat. That's pretty whacky, don't you think? And you should see us at minyan every morning entwined in our tefillin, wrapped in our tallitote (prayer shawls), mumbling insensibly and rocking forward and back. Wow. That's whacky, wouldn't you say? And yet, wouldn't you want one of us in the White House? Well, probably not. Because what if something came up on Shabbat? We couldn't even pick up the phone! Anyway, here is my point: whacky is a relative term.
RE; 341
Why did you lie in your profile? Your PhD can’t be in Rhetoric. A pest who is to dumb to understand LEAVE ME ALONE is capable of earning a degree in only one subject — Stupidity.
Go bug someone else, troll.
Why did you lie in your profile?Dude. First: chill. This is a website, not RL. Second: Please understand, everything that happens in this world is not about you. I am here because I want to discuss this topic. And I am. You just happen to be here. But you are obviously not here to discuss this topic. Regard your pattern: Someone poses an issue. You insult them. I pose a question. You attack me on personal grounds. So the question then becomes, why are you here, and why are you so angry at the rest of us? And why do you want to bait us into a flame war?
Once again: Mormonism is inconsistent with normative Christianity as it is inconsistent with the canons and creeds issued by the primitive church, e.g. the canon of scripture, The Nicene Creed, The Apostles' Creed etc. It is on these grounds that I would say that the Mormons are not Christians, in the same sense that Manicheans or Ebionites are not Christians. There. Does that make sense to you? Ask whatever questions you wish if you need further clarification.
I would be happy to vote a Jew into office, you guys worship God.
(And tell us where you hid the Ark!)
What?
You's sum 'splaning to do Lucy!! hehehe
How so?
And if you would....define anti-Mormon....and anti-Christian, please.....
There was no avoiding of the question. I answered the question by simply highlighting that before one mounts the supposed moral soapbox and sanctimoniously criticizes the perceived racism/bigotry in the Book of Mormon that the same standard of scrutiny and criticism is required to be applied to the Bible.
I think Christ said it best in Matt. 7:3-5
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
Not trying to be polarizing...it's just a question.
You seem pretty hostile to folks who disagree with that religion.
Are you that way with those who question the beliefs and tenets of Islam?
And before you get hed'up about that question...I DO NOT mean to compare the two religions. Substitute Hinduism...or, whatever. It's just a question....
Thanks in advance....
I think the same level of scrutiny that’s being applied towards the Book of Mormon should be applied towards the Bible, Koran or any other religious holy book. Its just that Mitt Romney is a Mormon who is running for President (i.e. a job that spends more of my gross earnings than I do) and his religion calls the Book of Mormon the most correct book on earth. If its so correct then why is it so fully of bigotry and racism?
My questions are from a sincere belief to understand.
Is this at exactly at the time of death?
Seems pretty clear from the text:
For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked
we have a probationary period
Can you point to the scripture that supports this?
Therefore the sacfrice of Jesus has everlasting properties
On a going forward basis. Still don't see the "backward" nature. Seems to say exactly the opposite.
re; 354
“To: Turret Gunner A20
Are you a Mormon?”
>>>> nO.<<<
“Not trying to be polarizing...it’s just a question.}
>>>> iT’S ABOUT TIME SOMEONE ASKED IT.<<<
“You seem pretty hostile to folks who disagree with that religion.”
>>>> If you’ll look again you will find that I only get hostile when people get hostile with me first, or try to put me down. <<<
“Are you that way with those who question the beliefs and tenets of Islam?”
>>>> I would ask the same questions and act the same way if they proclaimed the same kind of stuff without proof of proper foundation. I guess it’s the lawyer in me.<<<
“And before you get hed’up about that question...I DO NOT mean to compare the two religions. Substitute Hinduism...or, whatever. It’s just a question....”
<<<< Why should I get ‘hed’up”? You asked a pertinent question in a civil manner, and deserved an answer in like manner.<<<
“Thanks in advance....”
You’re most welcome.
OOOOPS!!!
Looks like I had better be a bit ,more careful with my caps lock — and read over my posts before punching the button.
Sorry.
And temper. Re: 351
>>>> I would ask the same questions and act the same way if they proclaimed the same kind of stuff without proof of proper foundation. I guess it’s the lawyer in me.<<<Well, no, I would argue, this doesn't follow, because Lawyers in particular and jurists in general rule on principle and precedent, and the criterion you specify above--proclamations without proof--is qualitatively different from challenging assumptions or interrogating claims, which is what the rest of us are doing between your sudden and unprovoked fits of pique.
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.