Elder Ballard responds to evangelical criticism

Deseret Morning News ^ | Dec. 6, 2007 | Jennifer Dobner

[fallingwater]

SALT LAKE CITY — When it comes to the big theological questions about God, Mormons and evangelical Christians will have to agree to disagree, a Mormon church authority said Wednesday.

"They're locked into the Nicene Creed . . . We're locked into the restoration and the experiences of Joseph Smith," said Elder M. Russell Ballard, a senior leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. "And that will undoubtedly be an issue until God himself comes."

[colorcountry]

Oh my! How appropriate that your feigning of “superior” knowledge should be framed by these scriptures from 1 Corinthians.

[tracer]

So, what’s your point?

[rightazrain]

Read this please, concerning baptism for the dead:

www.irr.org/mit/baptdead.html

[colorcountry]

You cannot goad me with your childish taunts, tracer. For I know you, and I know how desperate you are to defend your “religion.” Not Christ, but your precious religion.

Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

[MHGinTN]

I used a specific word as an adjective. No hyphen needed. Now, you want to prove for us what Old Mountain man cannot? Step right up ...

[tracer]

"I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."

So you say..........

[tracer]

No. You bore us both, and your entertainment value has expired. Peace on you......

[Little Bill]

I think that all of this hostility must end, politics are one thing, religon is another.

Colorcountry, my dear woman or girl as the case may be, your Huges relitives made me do an ancestor search, if you go to the Summit County web site and do a county history I am related to most of the first settlers.

I think a little civility is in order on these threads.

[colorcountry]

I’m sorry, but I have no Huges relatives. I do have a forefather named Hugh EVANS from Summit County. Is that who you mean?

[Little Bill]

My error, you are correct, How did so many of your family end up in Washington County. Most of mine went to Nev, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Washington State and Kali.

There is a lot of bitterness in you for what ever reason, I care not, I have problems of my own. I would think that an intelligent woman would search outward rather than inward.

[DelphiUser]

the Smithian darkness.

See, there you go, showing me that you really don't understand, well, you started off nice.

Many of us have become accustomed to being called bigots, haters, and such, yet we do not hate Mormons (the individuals). On the contrary, we love you or we wouldn't persist in striving with you.

I could say the same, I have been called many names because of my faith, it doesn't make either side look very good, does it?

Mitt's candidacy has brought to the surface most of the strange beliefs in Mormonism ...

LOL! you must not have been at this very long after all, I have fought this fight against ignorance about my church since High school! (And knew all the "Weird" stuff then, so did others)

even today I found a great deal of material showing your founders' heavy involvement with the occult, peepstone gazing, numerology, and treasure divining by consulting with 'spirits of the air'.

LOL! Yeah, some of those documents need a bit more looking into before you stake your reputation on them though...

After months of harangue at FR and seeing the Romney public campaign I'm convinced a more pervasive campaign to try and move evangelicals and Mormonism closer to comity has at its heart the run for highest office in America ...

You know, I have heard that postulated before, but the church was growing at an ever increasing rate, why risk that?

what a way to grow 'the Mormon church' by lending credibility to the heresies with a leader in highest office to bring power and prestige and tax monies for programs to church friendly venues!

Or spreading Truth, we have a different perspective on that, to me what you are posting here is heresy.

Is it conspiratorial? I'm a writer, but not a writer of conspiracy tales.

DANG! you fooled me again!

My being convinced of it doesn't make it so WOW!, you have changed (and I mean that in a good way).

but the more I dig into Mormonism, the recent campaign in the past three or four years from Utah, and the army of Mitt sycophants working so hard to obfuscate the truth and deceive regarding LDS past and current anti-christian doctrines and beliefs and rituals, the more convinced I am becoming that the Mormon religious leaders have an agenda with regard to Romney and gaining power in America beyond Utah and Nevada.

You know run on sentences as a way of prohibiting responses does not work for I am just as capable as you of having sentences that never seem to end (LOL!) Lets see, IF I understand you correctly:

1. The church is behind Mitt running,and it's an organized campaign
2. Church supporters obfuscate (another word for Lie, if it's intentional as the use here clearly indicates.)
3. Deceiving about our past.
4. Anti christian doctrines
5. The church trying to get power beyond Utah and Idaho.

My responses

1. The church has been more embarrassed by flip flopper Mitt "Representing" us than you apparently know.
2. We attempt to tell the truth as we see it, if you have a problem with that, well, sorry!
3. I for one have never tried to deceive anyone about the churches past, there are those on our side who simply don't know, we don't wallow in our past mistakes, we have plenty of people willing to do that for us.
4. We are Christians, how can we be anti Christian? As a matter of fact we are more Christian thatn your church (rubber and glue arguments for the amusement of lurkers to follow)
5. The church has plenty of "power" now, most of the west (Arizona, Wyoming, Washington, Texas to name a few) were settled by Mormons, and we have large contingents else where too.

Your post while long was a little on the fluffy side (I'd say light, but you might take it the wrong way...)

Evangelicals have to be manipulated into remaining quiet toward the heresies (Romney's sycophancy asserts you're a bigot if you consider his religion when deciding for whom to vote),

Insert anything else there, let me make a few suggestions:

Asserts you are a bigot if you consider ______________ When deciding for whom to vote

1. Race
2. Skin color
3. Gender
4. social class
5. hair color
6. ear shape

Hey, I tried to get silly at the end, OK?

IMHO, there are plenty of substantive issues that should keep Mitt from being the nominee, that religion is actually a protective shield keeping people from discussing his politics something that does not make anyone a Bigot when discussing a political office.

A few things I think should be discussed VIS Mit:

1. Health care (I do not consider the Taxechusests Health plan a conservative platform to run on.)
2. Gun control (What did Mitt do while governor about the Gun laws there?)
3. Taxes (Did real taxes go up or down under Mitt?)
4. Abortion (How did Mitt do while Governor, what are his prior stands on it?)
5. Same sex Marriage (How did SSM fair under Governor Mitt?)
6. What is Mitt's position on the Border?
7. What plans (if any) has Mitt put forth to fix the problems and deal with the issues here and i am sure I could come up with more.

My problem is that I honestly believe that you guys by attacking us are helping him, the less conservative Guy to do well. or they have to be manipulated into going along in the spirit of comity and 'tolerance' to achieve the goals of your church and its leadership, to include Mitt Romney's campaign.

I don't know how many evangelicals I have voted for without ever thinking of this, please do not cause me to think of it again, it is a very unChristlike thought, IMHO. Romney's recent speech fooled a lot of conservatives, but one phrase stood out as a clue to the manipulative goal:

I thought you were not a conspiracy theorist...

he asserted something to the effect of 'one should not be elected or rejected because of their religious beliefs/faith'. I agree with that, we are not electing a pope, but hopefully we are electing a conservative! Frankly, that's a liberal tactic to squelch individual right to discern the nature of the candidate ...

LOL! or maybe it's about focusing on the secular office of the president, not the religious office of the pope when voting for a politician.

IMHO, no religion wants to be measured by it's politicians, seriously, Think of all the Democrat Catholics, Hill and Billy didn't do the Methodists and the Baptists any favors, and Mitt is not going to "make us look good" if elected, of that I am sure.

we must not consider the heresies the candidate adheres to when deciding whether we want that person as our supreme political/governmental leader?

Why should what a people hold as their private faith matter? It should be how they will govern that matters, I for one would rather have a man who will do the right thing politically as President than someone will sincerely share my faith while making all the wrong moves for the USA, but I guess some people just can't see the logic in that. And I guess that is why I am, as I know you know, not supporting Mitt, but Fred Thompson.

Bull excrement, in plain language.

May I enhance your vocabulary? You could have said you sir are a professional Bovine scatoligist, no really it's a work of art!

Such a use of language also exempts you from being banned, Grin.

And before you plead and whine that you're a Thompson supporter

Too late...

you are a Mormon apologist

Yes, I guess I am in that I try to explain my religion to those who clearly do not understand it or they would not be so opposed to it.

heavily enlisted to spin and twist where the heresies of Mormonism are presented, as evidenced over the past several months!

Actually, I m occasionally frustrated only that I cannot post more faster, for there are sometimes threads where I cannot keep up with the sheer numbers of posts. Oh well, if I wanted a hobby that would leave me with extra time, I'd... well that's not what hobbies are for now is it, or you'd have to get another one.

MHG, may I say that I have enjoyed our posts today

God bless and Merry Christmas

[rightazrain]

” ‘I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.’

So you say..........”

Excuse me, Tracer, but that was a direct quote from the New Testament. Don’t you know that?

[DelphiUser]

So far, silence.

Some of us can take a long time polishing our posts before we post them... and see where we mispelt the first word. (sigh)

[colorcountry]

They were sent by Brigham Young. It was their mission to colonize Southern Utah. None of them did end up in Washington County. Parowan is in Iron County and Panguitch is in Garfield County. They are still there.

I have done much searching, but I suppose you discount it since my path has lead me to Christ and away from the man-made doctrine of Mormonism. It is too bad you don’t recognize salvation in Christ alone, through Faith alone, by Grace alone.

[SkyPilot]

Bravo MHGinTN!

Post #73 was courteous, logical, and not hurtful.

It is very difficult for the management of FR to deal with the competing camps on these threads (the Evangelicals and the Mormons).

I applaud the Mods - and Jim Rob most - for allowing the debate and for his patience.

Jim - I still remember you wagging that ugly finger at Bill Clinton at the Rally.

God bless - and thanks.

Sky

[Colofornian]

we must not consider the heresies the candidate adheres to when deciding whether we want that person as our supreme political/governmental leader?

Why should what a people hold as their private faith matter? It should be how they will govern that matters, I for one would rather have a man who will do the right thing politically as President than someone will sincerely share my faith while making all the wrong moves for the USA, but I guess some people just can't see the logic in that.

You can't reduce it this matter to just voters opting for "someone sharing my faith..." 'cause even voters recognize the big difference 'tween a Southern-Baptist backgrounder like Bill Clinton & a say, a Mike Huckabee.

It's not as simple as that.

As for Why should what a people hold as their private faith matter? It should be how they will govern that matters... the following posts from today's thread http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1937333/posts I believe addresses this:

A poster had written that it'd be a nice change to have a lifelong family man...and I, sarcastically responded:

Hey, we're not voting for "family-men-in-chief" for POTUS. (What a man does & believes in his "personal" & "private" life is personal and private...it's not meant to be dissected as you step into the voting booth)

Well, two female posters rightfully took me to task for this statement:

I think a godly family man would be a nice start for taking on the spawn of the devil. It is a complete contrast from the fraudulent Clintoons. + Hey, if a man betrays his wife, he sure will have no problem betraying others. So yes, personal life and character does matter.

I then responded: OK, OK, OK, I give up the temp mask I was wearing personifying other FREEPERS!! (As FastCoyote could tell from his post #179, I was being a bit sarcastic) I actually agree with you both--at least on these points you've made...One of the posters insightfully added: Oh, and by the way, I disagree with that statement completely, that line was spoon fed to us by the Clintons and look where it got us. I just don’t buy that lie, I didn’t believe it then and I don’t believe it now. The President of the United States is a very important job, it’s not for the faint of heart with a closet full of dirty secrets.

And so I responded: Well, again, I was being sarcastic because I was basically parroting the false motto--as you aptly pointed out--of the Clintons. My point was, tho, is that there's a parallel tract of the Clinton motto...and that is to take the exact same statement and instead of applying it to personal, private moral behavior, some FREEPER folks apply it to personal other-worldly commitments as if it was only a private matter & not to be evaluated in the voting booth. I don't believe you can separate a person's other-dimensionly commitments from their character...and as you pointed out, trying to parcel out character from this high office is indeed a lie. (Nice touch to that paragraph) Bottom line: IF a person is vulnerable to deception & therefore deceives others with the example of their lives...in what they hold dearest in their personal & family lives & faith lives...for example, what a POTUS does with an intern that breaks the covenant of his youth to his wife...or for example, what a potential POTUS believes in the most important area of his life--his faith...THEN, what kind of confidence does that inspire for the voter when it comes to knowing that leader of the Free World will be at times negotiating with the heads of rogue terrorist states...or the heads of Muslim states?

[Old Mountain man]

Very nice wording there. What particular version of what book are you citing?

[Old Mountain man]

So has MHGinTN.

[Old Mountain man]

Will you people get it through your heads that I have NO intention of going to every blasted anti-mormon site you wish to post?

I DON’T CARE WHAT THEY SAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Clear?

[Old Mountain man]

Some do.