Yes, Romney needs to answer questions about his religion

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

[Saundra Duffy]

http://www.sdnhm.org/scrolls/description.html

A friend of ours visited the Dead Sea Scroll exhibit in San Diego recently and he is not a Mormon but called us with an excited voice. Very interesting! Read this from the “Alma Scroll”:

“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.”

[Saundra Duffy]

FYI.

http://www.sdnhm.org/scrolls/description.html

A friend of ours visited the Dead Sea Scroll exhibit in San Diego recently and he is not a Mormon but called us with an excited voice. Very interesting! Read this from the “Alma Scroll”:

“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.”

[sevenbak]

Snickers? I thought it was popcorn that we ate while waiting?

[sevenbak]

See your doing it again, it’s about HEARING HIS VOICE. How many times do I need to post the John reference? You take what I say and twist it to meet your own interpretation of what I say.

[sevenbak]

“Prior to the Crucifixion, the gospel was specifically sent to the house of Israel.”

Actually, it wasn’t. The Messiah, Son of David, King, a Person, was sent to fulfill the prophecies of the Nation of Israel, restored in the land with their King. The Gospel, based on His death and resurrection and ascension was offered these were completed, to the new body, the Church.

Um, where in your rebut is it any different than what I just said at the top? The key here is PRIOR to the crucification...

[sevenbak]

You brought it up and never furnished the reference you made. It’s not a separate discussion, the gathering of Israel goes hand in hand with the scattering of Israel. It’s all one eternal round and is crucial to the last days and the fulfilled prophesies of the same. Since we are deep into the scattered sheep references, let’s gather the sheep before we end the discussion.

[sevenbak]

Oh, and I didnt’ over look your point about the John reference. I looked over your interpretation of it and found in inconsistent with other references. We will certainly have to disagree on that one, because we’ve about hashed that one to death.

[DelphiUser]

sevenbak, please forgive me for horning in.

ampu, you cannot tell us what our beliefs are, you cannot know what our beliefs are, until we tell you.

Sevenbak sounds frustrated because he has additional scripture that sheds light on the Bible, while I know you do not believe these scriptures, we do, in order to understand our beliefs, we must sometimes expand the discussion to those scriptures precisely because the Bible is incomplete, let me give you one example. D&C 1:38

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

So whether Jesus visits everyone or his servants do, it is the same, your instance that Jesus will have to visit everyone may be your belief, but it is not ours. Your belief does not even make sense according to the Bible by itself for God commanded his disciples to "Go ye into all the world and preach my gospel unto every creature.

You said "I said that if you did not realize that it IS Christ HIMSELF that brings EVERY sheep into the fold, then you do not understand salvation."

If Jesus was going to visit every single person, then why call apostles, why command them to preach his word?

It is precisely because Jesus is sending his disciples (us) that we know he was not going to go.

Jesus performed the atonement already, his saving work is a done deal. All that remains is to see if we are smart enough to take advantage of this incredible offer, repent, keep his commandments, and he will seal us his and we will be joint heirs with him in heaven, reject him and we are left to our own inadequate devices and in the last day we will be cast off.

Truly, if you do not understand that Jesus sent us to do his work and that the doing of his missionary work is separate from his saving work then you truly do not understand the Bible, or salvation.

God bless ampu, may God teach you his ways until you are his.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“You take what I say and twist it to meet your own interpretation of what I say.”

Mandatory time out for you to find your peaceful center!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Um, where in your rebut is it any different than what I just said at the top? The key here is PRIOR to the crucification...”

NO Gospel for Israel at all. Instead, a King. The Gospel is for the Church.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Delphi,
You certainly have a right to post wherever you wish, but
remember that I asked you not to post to me again.

best,
ampu

[DelphiUser]

Delphi,

You certainly have a right to post wherever you wish, but remember that I asked you not to post to me again.

best,
ampu

Sorry, I thought you posting to me here meant all that was over with, my apologies.

I also distinctly remember stating that posting about Mormonism meant you were posting to me and I just might respond.

I for one am perfectly willing to bury the hatchet.

If you are going to post about my church, ergo me, I may choose to respond. IIRC the mods said that was fine.

RM, sorry to bother you, does ampu have the right to say anything he wants about me and my church without me being able to respond? or does talking about my church give me the right to respond. I will of course behave in the ways proscribed by the Mods, but this "I can critique but you can't respond" interpretation ampu is promoting seems a bit unfair to me.

Can I get some direction please?

[DelphiUser]

Snickers? I thought it was popcorn that we ate while waiting?

To each his own, mine was a play off of their commersials, snicker :-)

[Religion Moderator]

When a Freeper asks you not to ping him or talk about him, we expect the request to be honored - but the request does NOT extend to the groups or religious assemblies to which the one requesting or the one complying might belong.

In the case where a Freeper asks you for the courtesy and then rails against your beliefs, there is nothing preventing you from responding in a similar manner, academically and at arm's length, by rebutting the claims to "all."

However, to prevent silly "he touched me!" flame wars that would put both parties on the Moderator's radar - neither party should quote the other in making an academic, arm's length argument.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Religion Moderator, here is the history from my own point
of view, so that you will understand my request...

I spent months responding to Delphi and realized it was an
exercise that was pointless. His posts drag on and on and on
endlessly. Further, when I did post in good faith, he accused
me of lying, twisting, distorting, etc. His personal attacks
were in almost every post, which made any attempt at
discussion pointless...

...and he couldn’t seem to distinguish between a criticism
of mormonism versus a criticism of himself.

Finally, I asked him to no longer post to me. I wish it could
be otherwise, but that’s what happened. I have nothing
against him, but I realized it wasn’t worth my time to be
involved in responding.

I do post about mormonism. I never critique this poster at
all, however. It would be like touching the tar baby... and
life is too short.

best,
ampu

[DelphiUser]

My posts are sometimes long because I have found that if I do not respond to every point, those on the other side will assume I agree with their un-refuted point.

If you want short responses from Mormons, keep to one focused topic.

I am not going to go into any personal behavior because it's not relevant.

I am a Mormon, so when someone talks about Mormon beliefs, they are talking about my beliefs. Your acceptance of that statement is irrelevant to the reality of how it will be reacted to. The complaint that "I was talking about Mormons, not about a specific Mormon" is not unique to any one critic of our faith. I do not think this is a legitimate argument, it reminds me of those who say, I support the troops, but not the war, you cannot logically do both.

I will state again, if you post about Mormons, you are posting about me, for I am a Mormon, if you wish to avoid me completely, stay off threads about my religion, otherwise, let's have a nice civil, focused discussion, when our paths do cross.

You posted to me before I responded to you. That is why I thought it was OK.

My sincere apologies for offending you, can you find it in your heart to forgive me?

ampu, I honestly hope you have a great day.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Delphi,
I do not wish you to post to me. I do not need to
forgive you for anything. I do not want to restrict
your presence on any thread. I only requested that
you would no longer post to me. This is yet one more
request - now numbering at least three.

Earlier, I placed a placemarker on this thread. I will
make sure I never do that again in a way connected to
you.

I do not post about “mormons”, but about “mormonism” -
specifically that it is not a Christian doctrine. You
can believe otherwise and argue for your side in whatever
way you wish. I do not have a desire to have you do otherwise,
but I do not wish to have you post to me. It is quite simple.

Having tried to clarify this in the presence of the RM,
I will not longer be responding to you and I’d ask you
to do the same. Life is too short as it is...

best,
ampu

[DelphiUser]

I do not post about “mormons”, but about “mormonism” - specifically that it is not a Christian doctrine.

I am a Mormon, I believe in Jesus Christ, posting that I do not believe in Jesus Christ, nor follow his doctrine is an attack.

If anyone posts that "X group believes Y" and is not a member of X group, IMHO they are guilty of telling individual people (the members of X group) what they believe and is putting Y in the mouths of group X which I believe is prohibited by the rules of this forum.

Attributing motives to another poster or otherwise reading his mind is “making it personal.” Stick with the issues and you’ll be fine. When in doubt, double check your use of pronouns before hitting “post.”

Telling me what I, or my religion believes is a personal attack and should not be allowed.

Any anti-Mormon who thinks we are not Christian needs to say things that way, making it clear he is not stating a fact but his opinion.

RM, Could you add to your list of Don'ts don't tell others what they believe (even as a group). I think this addition would eliminate some of the strife on these threads.

RM, thank you for your time and thank you for serving on FR.

[Religion Moderator]

This thread is in the News Forum, not the Religion Forum.

On the Religion Forum, it is tolerable to attack other confessions, authors, religious leaders, deities and such. It is NOT tolerable to attack another Freeper.

Likewise on the Religion Forum, I can and do intervene to prevent posters from "making it personal." There is nothing I can do to keep posters from "taking it personally." Discussion on the "open" threads are treated as if they are occuring in the town square. They are often contentious.

We do provide for "closed" threads on the Religion Forum. They are treated as if they were a meeting behind the closed doors of a church. These include devotionals, prayer threads and caucuses. Caucus threads cannot remain closed if the article or replies include any discussion of another confession's beliefs.

[MHGinTN]

I doubt an one who would post the following flawed logic because it fits a current political agenda for a particular Mormonism candidate will honor your request: “Telling me what ... my religion believes is a personal attack ...” It appears the Romney Mormon political platoon wants this mischaracterization to work toward squelching discussion/opposition to Mormonism, as a way to stop it from being a topic Mitt has to face. It is unusual for them to be so blatant in admitting this is the goal though.