Posted on 05/18/2007 4:36:41 AM PDT by Liz
“Somehow I can’t put it all together but it sounds like we will be sharing godhood with Christ. I think that is what all Christians believe, with the possible exception of you.”
I think you are a Mormon trying to pose as a traditional Christian.
“it sounds like we will be sharing godhood with Christ”
No, it does not sound that way. That is a decidedly heretical view to Christians, because it lowers Christ to our flawed level. We are not gods, we are sinners whose sins are forgiven, but being forgiven doesn’t make you a God.
Of course, if I think I am God and this is my planet - would you worship me????
So I guess we better not ask Romney what the first token of the priesthood is. Who cares. I think you or someone has made up some stuff about the poor murdered Joseph Smith, but you are allowed to believe anything you want. I don't think you are stupid or evil, just misinformed. Is it so bad if the Mormons are misinformed?
I too would like to see Hunter pull into the top tier (albeit Romney is looking pretty good right now). If Ghooliani and McCain complete their self-destruct before primary season, Hunter will get my vote, but he must be polling in the top 3 or 4 by then. I will not let the former mentioned gain the nomination because of a fractured vote over Romney. The other element to consider is that Romney would most likely appeal better to the “Reagan Democratsâ€. Hunter is a bold leader. That will no doubt scare the middle of the road, squishy “independentsâ€. I can see Romney’s demeanor being much more inviting to the masses. A Hunter/Romney or Romney/Hunter ticket would be dynamic and set up a strong candidate after a successful 2 term presidency.
What’s with the weird !@#$%^&* symbols on my post?
That’s wierd.
Me, I'm the source. That is the oath I took. Have you been to the temple? What oaths did you take?
Mitt himself encouraged people to google the Temple oaths. I suggest you do it.
If you decided when you were 12 that Mormonism is a fraud, why did you then later lie your way into the temple?
And, yes, I have been to the temple.
You said
No, it does not sound that way. That is a decidedly heretical view to Christians, because it lowers Christ to our flawed level. We are not gods, we are sinners whose sins are forgiven, but being forgiven doesn’t make you a God.
_____________________________________________________
We are sinners who can become perfected in Christ. Why is it that I am lowering Christ, I never said that. What Christianity says is that Christ raises us up to Him. We are to become perfect, that is the commandment from Christ.
It seems that there are a lot of ‘pretenders’ on the board now days.
I didn’t lie my way in. I thought that I would gain a testimony if I continued to live a good life. The Temple ceremony was the next step. I was worthy when I went. I knew the Church kept secrets, I thought I would learn the secrets and all my questions would be answered. In fact that is what my bishop told me.
Were you worthy when you went?
Yes, I was worthy. I also know enough about the questions you were asked to gain a temple recommend to know that if you were truthful about your conviction — supposedly held since you were 12 — that the church is a fraud, you never would have gotten in.
I sense that something happened which really hurt you, and that is the source of your anger.
You are in error.
First there are the 3 witnesses on the title page of the BoM:
There was Martin Harris, the Quaker-turned-Universalist-turned-Restorationist-turned Baptist-turned Presbyterian-turned-Mormon. (And that was only before his conversion to Mormonism) Afterward, (after the LDS kicked him out), he changed religions 8 more times (including with the Shakers) & then w/an LDS break-off group, the Strangites. Harris said his testimony for Shakerism was greater than for Mormonism. Just go to a BYU 1955 thesis by Wayne Gunnell and you'll see that the Shakers' "Sacred Roll and Roll Book" was likewise supposedly delivered by an "angel." (BTW, Harris, according to a book, Gleanings by the Way, said he aw the plates via "eyes of faith and not w/natural eyes")
Secondly we have David Whitmer, who was also excommunicated from the LDS church. According to the Palmyra Reflector (3/19/1831), Whitmer, like Harris, also said he saw the gold plates "by the eye of faith." Whitmer = "dumb beast to ride" & "an ass to bray out cursings instead of blessings" per JS (HoC, vol. 3: 228). Whitmer announced in 1847 (declared to Oliver Cowdery) that he was the prophet of the New Church of Christ.
Thirdly there's Cowdery Before (or as he was being excommunicated by the LDS church--HoC, 3:16-18), JS said he was the leader of a gang of "scoundrels of the deepest degree (Senate Doc 189, 2/15/1841, pp. 6-9, Comprehensive History of the Church, B.H. Roberts, vol. 1, pp. 438-439). This gang was apparently involved with stealing, lying, perjury, counterfeiting, & adultery.
As a later convert to Methodism, he denied the BoM and publicly confessed sorrow/shame for LDS connection. LDS try to make much of his return to the LDS church in 1848, but Cowdery rejoined efforts after that with LDS apostate apotle Wm McLellin as they tried to raise up a competing kingdom to LDSism.
So you rest your eternal life and faith in these 3?
Don't you wonder about those men whose names pop up in the D&C...LDS apostles like Luke S. Johnson, Lyman Johnson, William McLellin, Thomas B. Marsh?
Of the 12 original LDS apostles, 7 apostatized (or were ex-communcated) from the church: Orson Hyde, 1838; Marsh, 1838; McLellin, 1838; Lyman Johnson, 1838; Luke Johnson, 1837; John F. Boynton, 1837; even Smith's own brother, William Smith, in 1845.
PS — you do gain understanding in the temple, but not all at once. When I went the first time, I was a 19 year old bride. I came from a part-member family with no temple experience, and didn’t understand much of anything, inside or outside the temple.
I can honestly say that it wasn’t until I was in my late 40’s that I began to have real moments of understanding in the temple that were completely unexpected and very sacred to me. It’s my own fault, because I hadn’t been a frequent templegoer. Mostly just special occasions.
Did you go to the temple before your wedding, or before a mission?
But you are avoiding the point.
I don't have to convince you or anyone else a "positive"--namely (for example) that eyewitnesses to resurrection is rational evidence. (I don't have to convince a jury about the proof of the resurrection). All I have to do is to disprove the negative--that at least it's not "irrational" to accept the resurrection by faith. (The jury just has to agree with me that folks who believe in the resurrection are not irrational because of this point of faith).
THAT is a big difference! I haven't really been arguing what is "rationality?" I've been more arguing "Well, at least this ISN'T irrational."
Those witnesses also said they handled the plates. None ever said they were lying in their testimonies about the Book of Mormon. Some that were excommunicated became associated with breakoff sects, still believing in the Book of Mormon.
Hmmmm how many times have I heard that one?
You left because (fill in the blank)________
a. you were hurt
b. someone offended you
c. you couldn’t live the commandments
d. you fell into love with sin
e. you are too worldly
g. you think too much
h. you didn’t have sincere intent
j. other
The leaving is one thing. The anger is quite another.
Allow me to clarify my Koresh comments for you. They weren't aimed at Mormons. They were aimed at you. (Don't use the broader context of the thread to dodge that).
I didn't bring up Koresh or Jones to hurl anything at LDS. I was responding to a very specific comment you made:
I have said nothing about whether one persons religion or political ideas are good or bad...
I was responding very specifically to your indecisive theological relativism implied in this phrase. Now if you don't believe what you said, if you think, after all, that it is important to assign assessments of "false," "poor," "not so good," "neutral," "better," "on-target," and "true" to various "religious or political ideas," then I take back what I said. (Perhaps I'm not weighing the full contextual nuance of what you meant; or perhaps you don't apply this in an absolute way).
“It seems that there are a lot of ‘pretenders’ on the board now days.”
Yup, those posts started out as though they were from some naive agnostic, but devolved quickly into the “everyone is equal to Christ” mantra and that I am the rare odd man out.
You’d think they’d at least be honest and say what they are, but they are skilled deceivers, their church breeds them that way, as you well know.
By the way, thanks for what you do, you’ve provided some eye openers.
“You’d think they’d at least be honest and say what they are, but they are skilled deceivers, their church breeds them that way, as you well know.”
Geez. If that isn’t bigotry, I don’t know what is. You people are scary.
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.