Posted on 04/05/2007 5:42:47 PM PDT by Utah Girl
Mitt Romney is riding high this week after his victory in "the first primary," which consists of raising cold, hard cash to compete: more than $20 million in the first quarter, $5 million more than his closest contender, Rudy "Lay off my wife!" Giuliani. John McCain came in a lackluster third with $12.5 million.
Romney's campaign benefited from two distinct donor networks, according to media accounts: Wall Street and Mormons. GOP front-runner Rudy, struggling with one of those weird media freak shows erupting around his wife, Judith (her alleged participation in future Cabinet meetings and former puppy killings), must be a little envious on both counts.
Why is it that all the Dem candidates are still married to their first spouse, while among the current crop of leading GOP contenders, the only guy with just one wife is the Mormon?
Truth is, I don't think this is just an accident. There's something about Mormons the rest of us ought to pay attention to: Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do much better than almost any other faith group at sustaining a marriage culture -- and they do this while participating fully and successfully in modern life. Utah is above the national average in both household income and the proportion of adults who are college graduates.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Kelsey?
Ah, thanks. I think much of today’s world follows that “wicked comandment” ;-)
As I already explained in another post the “BONE” word came from a foot note B on the word ONE unfortunately, I did not catch the footnote when I cut and pasted the scripture into the text box here, and Bone being a word was not caught by the spell checker.
Sheesh A “spello” and you are making a huge deal of it.
I suppose you never misspell anything.
It was my mistake in a cut and paste with a footnote, footnote “B”, here is the scripture in question via link.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/17/11,21-22#11
I do find it interesting that you choose to focus on one spelling error instead of the substance of my post, but I guess I should not be surprised.
I must say the post about the “Wicked bible was interesting too.
Here is a misspelling joke,
There was a monk who while still young was promoted into the “Copy Rooms” (the rooms where they copy the scriptures into new books) The young monk has been there but a few days when he seeks out the head of the order. He asks the head, “How often do we go back to the oldest copies and compare to make sure nothing has been left out?” The head says, well, I don’t know that we ever have, that’s a good idea, here are the keys go down into the vault and check, let me know if you find anything. Three days later, the young monk does not show up for dinner, and the Head goes to look for him. Finding the young monk in the vault, despondent, repeatedly bashing his head into the wall. The Head asks “what is wrong is something missing?” The young monk responds just an “R”. The Head says how bad could it be? I mean it’s just an “R”. The young monk responds the word was supposed to be “CELIBRATE”!
(not a true story, but do I need a humor tag?)
Gender is an eternal spritual construct. God created us spiritually gendered before he created us physically gendered. Genesis explains the spiritual nature of gender before the physical was created.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. 4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
There was a spritual creation before the physical. The spiritual creation included male and female. Gender and our spirit are eternal. Its why Mormons strongly support the marraige amendment. Liberals are the ones who usually try to preach that gender is an eternal anture of our spirit.
If God has male and female attributes then God is genderless..
You make my point.. why would a spirit need gender?..
Also why Jesus is the Head of the Body of Christ..
The metaphor is complete..
Either you have a short memory or are willfully trying to make sevenbak look bad. I recall having this exact same conversation with you about this scripture when I first started posting. You expressed indignation that I was trying to deceive people by missing the footnote. I'd post the actual quote from you about it but don't want to waste my time dredging it up. Feel free to check my post history.
>>>>nor does the Greek offer such an addition to the text.
Interesting you discuss the Greek. Your doctrines mirror those of the Greek philosophers not the early Christians who share the "Mormon" version of the Godhead.
The Doctrine of God and the Nature of Man
Your definition of God relies on extra biblical greek philosophy and is different than that preached by the early Christians.
Here's a few tidbits from the link.
Specifically, the phrase, "of one substance or essence," expresses a concept that was adopted and adapted from contemporary Greek philosophy, but was foreign to the thought of the original Christianity.
Xenophanes and Empedocles expressed similar ideas of what God must be like. Xenophanes (570-475 B.C.) conceived of "God as thought, as presence, as all powerful efficacy." He is one God--incorporeal, "unborn, eternal, infinite, . . . not moving at all, [and] beyond human imagination."18 And Empedocles (ca. 444 B.C.) claimed that God "does not possess a head and limbs similar to those of humans . . . . A spirit, a holy and inexpressible one . . . ."
From the Greek ousia. The Nicene Creed uses the word homoousios, meaning "of the same substance or essence." The common notion of the Trinity as a single person who dons three different masks in order to relate to humanity is actually a heresy called modalism, which was condemned by Catholic councils. Beisner, God in Three Persons,
The link has so much more. Including the actual quotes of the early Christians who abhorred the entrance of Greek philosophy into interpretation of the Bible. [Tertullian, Origen, Justin Martyr, Iraneus, Hippolytus Clement of Alexandria, Novatian, Lactantius, Eusebius etc.] Are you brave enough to really read it and respond?
You claim precedance of the Bible yet you use the language of the philosophers which early Christians condemned.
Sorry, #270 Meant for DelphiUser,
MHGinTN’s post had no person listed in the To: I assumed it was sevebak
“You claim precedance of the Bible yet you use the language of the philosophers which early Christians condemned.” As attributed repeatedly, I quoted from YAda Yahweh ... if you want to attack, take it up with them. You and DelphiUser are doing a good ‘double team’, he in freepmail you on the thread. Nice. I think I’ll defer to hosepipe’s clear post.
God says "Let Us" not "Let I". God is not male and female in one. This is a heresy picked up from Greek Philosophy hundreds of years after Christ's death. The Hebrews interpreted the Gensis scripture differently than you (and the Greek philosophers do) The link in post 270 explains it..
Not to be overly simplistic here but I find it intersting that you quote the theories of Godless Gay Greeks instead of the position of Early Christians some of whom knew the Apostles personally.
I see you didn't read the link. Such questions are answered.
Yahweh--Prince of Angels, Second God, Jesus as Yahweh--Prince of Angels, Second God.
I think someone posted those scriptures already on this forum so I'll forebear, but you seem tobe responding to the Bible or Early Christians with Greek Philosophy still.
Jesus says he is Yahwev in the Bible. Peter calls Christ the Rock of the OT.
Gay anything... is all about gender..
Genderless..... removes sex as an option, temptation or sin..
I see... you have not thought this through.. very deeply..
If you are a Mormon, that explains why..
Taking my comment out of context. I’m not surprised. I have been asking some specific questions about your religion in order to become more educated about it, and have gotten nothing except generic, dance around, dodge the bullet responses.
I had no negative opinions about the Mormon religion prior to this thread, but that is rapidly changing. When I ask a specific question and get a vague answer I suspect BS. That’s just the cop in me. When you take my comment on scripture out of context in order to return a smartass comment I suspect BS. You are doing a great job. Keep it up.
You said” I’m thinking that the clothing in white raiment is the doing of the Lord, and doesn’t count if we do it for ourselves. Anyone can put on clean underwear.”
>> Taking my comment out of context.
I didn’t think your comment about anyone donning clean BVDs was in a serous vein, if it was, then I am sorry I made light of it.
>>I’m not surprised. I have been asking some specific questions about your religion in
>>order to become more educated about it, and have gotten nothing except generic,
>>dance around, dodge the bullet responses.
Fair enough, there are many on this thread attacking Mormons, freep mail me your questions, and I will give you serious answers, but this environment is not conducive to honest questioners.
>>I had no negative opinions about the Mormon religion
>>prior to this thread, but that is rapidly changing.
Why would you let some pajama clad persons change you opinion of people you have actually met (note, I am including myself in the pajama clad category since you and I have never met.)
>>When I ask a specific question and get a vague answer I suspect BS.
Or maybe those on the tread suspect your questions because they are defending against a rain of hostile questions from known anti-Mormons who frequent these threads.
>>When you take my comment on scripture out of context in order to return a smartass
>>comment I suspect BS.
Well actually, I was going for humor, but that’s just me.
>>You are doing a great job. Keep it up.
I guess you are being serious here, so thanks! (See, it’s not so easy to know what they other guy is thinking. I look forward to your serious questions in my inbox.)
Looking back in your posts, you are asking questions about Mormon temples. Let me try to give some serious information about temples by way of penance for a quirky sense of humor.
Many of the ceremonies in the temple are performed for those who have already passed from this life. This is a vicarious work, much like the atonement was a vicarious work performed by Christ for us. Mormons believe that the dead can accept or reject the gospel if they did not have the opportunity in this life. Therefore we must perform this work for all that we can. This is why Mormons are so big on genealogy.
Here are the functions Mormons perform in the temple.
1. Baptisms for the dead.
2. Endowment ceremonies. (a further covenant Preparatory to marriage for eternity)
3. Endowment ceremonies for the dead.
4. Sealing ceremonies. (Marriage for life and the eternities)
5. Sealing ceremonies for the dead.
Those who have been through the temple wear a special kind of underwear called a “garment”. The purpose of the garment is to remind us of the covenants we make in the temple. We wear them under our clothing because it is a private reminder of a private covenant. As for access, the temples are open for public tours before they are dedicated. Once the temple is dedicated only members holding Temple recommends are allowed inside. Members who hold a temple recommend can participate in any ceremony and observe any ceremony inside the temple that they have already participated in as a “Participant”. Any member of the church can obtain a temple recommend by keeping their baptismal covenants, and attending church.
As for the actual contents of the ceremonies, I have covenanted with the lord not to reveal them to anyone outside of the temple, I hope you understand I will not violate that covenant.
WHEW!
Did anyone see the 2 hour special on the History Channel last night about the lost books of the bible? Pretty interesting.
While I usually take credit for my own mistakes, I don’t think this post is meant for me.
No worries.
I guess it’s OK you assumed it was me, I am an occasional offender. ;-)
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.