Yes, Romney needs to answer questions about his religion

Salt Lake Tribune ^ | August 7, 2007 | Dick Polman

[lady lawyer]

You forgot the “Christian” explanations of the New Testament reference to baptism for the dead. Those are interesting, too.

[Elsie]

I mean, Paul didn’t even have a doctorate in Theology!

He had the equivalent:

Philippians 3:1-7
 1.  Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord! It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you.
 2.  Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh.
 3.  For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh--
 4.  though I myself have reasons for such confidence.   If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more:
 5.  circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee;
 6.  as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.
 7.  But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ.

 

Acts 23:1-6
 1.  Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, "My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day."
 2.  At this the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth.
 3.  Then Paul said to him, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!"
 4.  Those who were standing near Paul said, "You dare to insult God's high priest?"
 5.  Paul replied, "Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: `Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.' "
 6.  Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead."

[Elsie]

cI know what your answer will be.

[DanielLongo]

I like it. I may have used something like “the difference between pork rinds and a filet mignon”. :)

[Saundra Duffy]

Thanks, tantiboh. A couple of things FYI, FReeper pals:

1) Are we saved by grace or works? Entrance into God’s kingdom comes through covenant - a two-way promise between God and man. The follower of Christ promises to do what he/she can do - have faith, repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, endure faithfully to the end, and undertake deeds of Christian service. God on his part agrees to do for us what we could not do for ourselves - forgive our sins, transform our souls and purify our hearts, resurrect us from the dead, and save us hereafter in a kingdom of glory. LDS scriptures are very clear and consistent in stating that salvation or eternal life is a gift, in fact, the greatest of all the gifts of God, and that “it is by grace that we are saved after all we can do.” 2 Nephi 25:23.

2) Trinity doctrine or “Are Mormons Christian?” Many claim we are not Christian because we do not use the evangelical definition of Trinity, which evolved over time between 300 and 400 A.D. Since this evangelical definition was not complete until nearly 400 years after the death of Christ, then the prophets and the apostles identified in the Bible are not Christians in that sense, since the “trinity” and its definition are not found in either the scriptures or in the writings of early Christian leaders. The true test of whether a person is a Christian is if they believe in and try to follow Jesus Christ and his teachings with all their hearts.

“And 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

There’s an exhibit - “Dead Sea Scrolls” - currently on display in San Diego. “Latter-day Saints find this scroll of particular interest, because it specifies “Alma son of Judah” as one of the people involved in the agreement on the fourth line and at the bottom of the document. This text contains the oldest known occurrence of the name “Alma” outside of the Book of Mormon.” http://www.sdnhm.org/scrolls/description.html

In addition, the Dead Sea Scrolls - if one has an open mind - can prove that certain spiritual jewels were left out altogether or not interpretted correctly in Scriptures.

Have a great day, FReepers.

[DelphiUser]

You seem to confuse hypocrisy and mockery.

Sometimes, I am amazed at your ability... to miss the point.

[Grig]

“These ontological “mysteries” and not mysterious to me,”

Ah, but that is also what rubs some of them the wrong way. Some people WANT a lot of mysteriousness in their religion. Start to define things too clearly and it becomes light and truth and facts they have to conform to instead of some clouded, vague, fantastical force that they can build up superstitions around.

Just look at how many times they rail against us for being more specific about something than they are.

[Grig]

>> I mean, Paul didn’t even have a doctorate in Theology!

> He had the equivalent:

So then you hold those with a doctorate in Theology as equivalent to Pharisees. At last something we can agree on!

[Elsie]

Entrance into God’s kingdom comes through covenant - a two-way promise between God and man.
.
.
.
LDS scriptures are very clear and consistent in stating that salvation or eternal life is a gift, in fact, the greatest of all the gifts of God, and that “it is by grace that we are saved after all we can do.” 2 Nephi 25:23.

Too bad that's NOT the Biblical view.

[Elsie]

In addition, the Dead Sea Scrolls - if one has an open mind - can prove that certain spiritual jewels were left out altogether or not interpretted correctly in Scriptures.

So many punch lines:

So little time.

[Elsie]

Sometimes, I am amazed at your ability... to miss the point.

I don't see why; for there seems to be a LOT of it going on in these threads.

[Elsie]

So then you hold those with a doctorate in Theology as equivalent to Pharisees.

YUP!!

That's what he said, all right!!!

--MormonDude

[sandude]

The majority may NOT be afraid of Mormons, but it will only take 5% of Republican voters to abandon his ship and he can't win the election.

I'm way behind on this thread. Last week was brutal. I tend to agree with you on this CC. I think that people who feel as you do might kill Mitt's chances. If that does happen I also feel that your group may become marginalized in the party. You've told me before that this doesn't concern you and I can accept that.

There are however some other potential reverberations that might come about that I'd like to address. If Hillary gains control with a democratic congress she will have the potential to do some serious damage to our country. It will be interesting to see how the GOP changes as a result of a loss like this. I think that the 5% group that you represent will be the losers in the long run. I also feel it will cause people who have previously rejected the idea of Mormonism to come to a realization that there are two sides to Mormon history. Some of them might even end up joining.

It is my opinion that the day is coming when a true objective history of the LDS Church will become available to the general public. That history will not come from the church or from the anti crowd but will be provided by honest historians. I think Joseph Smith will come out looking better than you might think. I don't think it will lead to a huge influx of new members but it will open the eyes of honest seekers to find out for themselves. There will also be some in the church who will leave because of the things they find out. If I were a betting man, I'd place my wager on continued growth in the church. Those who remain and who join will be stronger and more committed to the faith.

The bottom line is that I think that in the future it will become tougher to paint Mormonism with the same old brush you guys have used for over a century. You will still be able to criticize the church but that criticism will have to be based on a more objective read of history. The same will be true of defenders of the church. We will have to come to grips with the thorny issues in church history. I look forward to the day. I'm sick of slogging through the same old arguments over and over again.

[Elsie]

We will have to come to grips with the thorny issues in church history.

I look forward to the day.

I'm sick of slogging through the same old arguments over and over again.

 

 

 

 

[colorcountry]

It will be interesting to see how the GOP changes as a result of a loss like this. I think that the 5% group that you represent will be the losers in the long run.

Sandude...I don't worry about my marginalization within the Republican Party. I worry about eternity, period. I cannot support Romney, and it matters not one iota if I am banned from FR or if the Republican Party quits taking my money. I'm not playing a game to posistion myself for power, I am voting my conscience.

If Hillary gains control with a democratic congress she will have the potential to do some serious damage to our country

I totally agree with this statement. That is why the Republican had better send a strong candidate to face Hillary, and not one that is already damaged by the perception of some voters that he is a member of a non-Christian cult. The Pubblies had better get it right and send the right candidate or there will be huge repercutions.

it will become tougher to paint Mormonism with the same old brush you guys have used for over a century.

This is hilarious. I was born into Mormonism only 50 years ago, you can't blame me if people for oever 100 years have exposed the fallacies of Mormonism. Mormons at some point will have to address their obsfucation of its own embarrassing doctrine and history. It isn't the detractors fault that Mormonism is patently absurd. Defend it if you can.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Apparently the message was lost or not heeded, so I gave up.”

I understood what you were trying to “say”, but the reason
for my own choices had nothing to do with mormonism. If you
can’t live without knowing, PM me.

best,
ampu

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Makes you kind of wonder how Paul and Peter and James and all the early apostles had any success whatsoever in spreading the Gospel, seeing as how they and their converts lacked significant study of structure, context, words usage,
original language, history, etc., in a unified whole of
interpretation, etc...

I mean, Paul didn’t even have a doctorate in Theology!”

I’m limited on time this afternoon, CYTD, but if you consider what you wrote, you might want to change your post.

Paul, Peter and James all had more extensive language ability in Hebrew and Greek than you or I. When they heard a sentence spoken in those languages, they understood it fully. They instantly knew word meaning, context, language, tense, history they were living in right then, and Jewish background.

And yes, Paul had more than a doctorate in Theology. He was a Jew of the Jews and was caught up directly in heaven with Christ, who directly gave him the Gospel (Galatians). I would take that over a common PhD any day of the week. My lowly Master’s Degree is peanuts compared to that.

And here is my point...

YOU and I do not have all of that. We have to WORK at it. And if we are just going to do “find a word whack a mole” “studies”, we are missing the richness and accuracy of Biblical meaning. Unfortunately, my criticism of mormonism stands. I’ve yet to see that happening. Consequently, “Bible Study” to mormonism is standing in a circle, rubbing each others’ shoulders, saying, “Yep. They’re all against us. Yep, we know the truth. Look! Here’s another word that supports what TBOM says!” All the time, never understanding why mormonism isn’t Biblical.

best,
ampu

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“You forgot the “Christian” explanations of the New Testament reference to baptism for the dead. Those are interesting, too.”

I have read that there are over 200 explanations for the use of the phrase (in just one cryptic phrase) in the NT. Never
in Church history has there been a consensus of what it meant.

Mormonism ceased on that. It is one of the very effective
ways mormonism seeks to counterfeit Christianity and position
itself.

best,
ampu

[lady lawyer]

Or, maybe we’re right.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Or, maybe we’re right.”

Or, maybe it wasn’t important to God
in any way, or He would have specified
what it is. You will search the Bible
in vain to find it anywhere else, which
says it isn’t a central doctrine. In all
likelihood, one of the 200 explanations
is correct, but I do not know which one -
nor does anyone else. Nor does it seem
it was important to God in any way.

It says a lot when groups elevate that
which isn’t important to God into a central
tenet of their faith.

best,
ampu