Posted on 01/08/2008 4:09:13 PM PST by tantiboh
Mitt Romney is facing an unexpected challenge in Iowa from rival Mike Huckabee, who has enjoyed a groundswell of support from religious voters, particularly evangelical Christians wary of the clean-cut former Massachusetts governor because of his Mormon religion.
The common worry among evangelicals is that if Romney were to capture the White House, his presidency would give legitimacy to a religion they believe is a cult. Since the LDS church places heavy emphasis on proselytizing -- there are 53,000 LDS missionaries worldwide -- many mainstream Christians are afraid that Mormon recruiting efforts would increase and that LDS membership rolls would swell.
...
THE ONLY PROBLEM with those fears is that they don't add up. Evangelicals may be surprised to learn that the growth of church membership in Massachusetts slowed substantially during Romney's tenure as governor. In fact, one could make the absurdly simplistic argument that Romney was bad for Mormonism.
...
ONE WAY TO GAUGE what might happen under a President Romney would be to look at what happened during the period of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. Held in Salt Lake City, they were dubbed the "Mormon Olympics."
...
Despite all the increased attention, worldwide the Church grew only slightly, and in fact in the year leading up to the games the total number of congregations fell. Overall, from 2000 to 2004, there was a 10.9 percent increase in memberships and a 3.6 percent increase in congregations.
...
The LDS church is likely to continue its current modest-but-impressive growth whether or not Romney wins the White House. Perhaps the only real worry for evangelicals is that, if elected, the former Massachusetts governor will demonstrate to Americans that Mormons don't have horns.
Carrie Sheffield, a member of the LDS Church, is a writer living in Washington, D.C.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Consistent with the strategy of attacking the New Testament in favor of the Gnostic writings, many mormons attack the Bible, trying to bring it down to the level of mormonism and the bom. DU knows better, since he never denied that the same gnosticism (and querky doctrines that find parallel in mormonism) was argued against by the apostles in the NT as being contrary to the gospel and their teachings.
Mormon apologetic literature abounds with "parallels" between mormonism and the teachings of the Gnostics in the second and third centuries. It may be that in some cases the Gnostics had roughly the same idea in mind as the mormons. But such parallels hardly help the mormon cause. They must first prove that the Gnostics were more faithful to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles than were their opponents; but in order to do that, they must either show that the Gnostics were consistent with the New Testament (which is a hopeless cause), or argue that the New Testament is not apostolic and is in fact a departure from the teachings of the first Christians. They can only resort to out of context citations to 'prove' their latter point.
He must have illegally crossed the egyptian border into Israel. lol.
All that is in the Bible is the Word of God!He does not mention the Book of Enoch as I have, and there is more, how much else are we missing that the Apostles and Jesus took for granted in their day?
The Bible may not be all of God's Words, but the entire Bible is God's Word. In other words it contains the Word of God, but not everything God ever said or caused to be written.
Most Christians just assume that the Bible contains all of God's Word. Why? The Bible does not say that it contains all of God's Word. The assumption is just based on tradition.
Well maybe it is time to face the fact that the New Testament writers had access to Books of Scriptures that we do not have today, which leads to the realization that our Bible is not as complete as it could be.
To take the position that God may have not wanted some of Paul's epistles to be included in the New Testament is next to asking if God wanted any of Paul's epistles to be in the New Testament.
But Paul wanted all his letters to be read in every church. Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27; 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
Paul and other apostles expected the local churches to swap all of the epistles that they wrote between them.
Also how many times have you run across the phrase in the New Testament "As it is written..." or the likes, and then using an exhaustive concordance or computer you cannot find the quoted reference.
It is just not in the Old Testament. For example Matthew 2:23 says, "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."
It seems that there was more than one prophet that prophesied that Jesus would be called a Nazarene, but we just don't have it in our Bible.
This Scripture may be in one of the lost books or maybe we just don't understand Matthew's application of the word "Nazarene"?
Well there is enough material in our Bible to prove the basic tenants of Christianity - man is a sinner - God loves us - Christ came to save us - live holy - etc.
God would probably have to act supernaturally for most church folks to accept any additional books.
But personally I really wish I had these missing books. I would love to read them, wouldn't you?
If you are sincerely asking for “clear unambiguous
OT prophecy that Christ fulfilled fully”, then you
haven’t actually searched very hard, or you have
chosen not to accept the evidence. Either way, you
appear to have made an uninformed decision to reject
God.
OT PROPHECY FULFILLED
http://www.bprc.org/topics/fulfill.html
EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT, By Josh McDowel
http://www.campuscrusade.com/Josh_McDowell/evidence.htm
KOINONIA HOUSE. The website below is linked to a
specific page. Start with download #4. If not, type
in “PROPHECY” in the search tool, then download #4.
http://www.khouse.org/sphider/search.php?query=prophecy&search=1
May God give you eyes to see and ears to hear.
In Jesus name.
...Jo
Sorry. Meant to include you in post #2164.
I find it curious that you keep insulting the Savior but the Mormons embrace you as their freind in what they are seeking to do ... you fit their agenda to sow doubt and division into which they may pour the heresies of Mormonism. Doesn't that give you pause? You can continue to insult the Savior, and it can be forgiven you, but take care that you do not insult the Holy Spirit by ridiculing His work and continue to reject His still small voice within your soul. There can come a day when you will be left in silence, not just in the dust from your doorway.
“I see, you want to yell at me that you think my beliefs are all wrong, but your beliefs get a pass.”
No...what is happening here is you are giving a false version of actual historic events.
“Are you sure you are not a trolls?”
Hey! I can only speak for myself Dan...I’m only pointing out inaccuracy here, and there’s plenty of it.
A troll would be someone who repeatedly makes false claims on new threads that have already been debunked on old threads.
[... it isn’t God who needs another chance ...]
I totally understand what you are saying and I’m
happy that you understood my subtextual “meaning”
despite my poor use of terminology.
...Jo
“They must first prove that the Gnostics were more faithful to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles than were their opponents; but in order to do that, they must either show that the Gnostics were consistent with the New Testament (which is a hopeless cause), or argue that the New Testament is not apostolic and is in fact a departure from the teachings of the first Christians. They can only resort to out of context citations to ‘prove’ their latter point.”
Fantastic! Stupendous! and most Excellent points Godzilla!
And when they side with the gnostics...or the montanists...or the arians....they have to necessarily heap tons of scorn upon the orthodox christians for no other reason - seemingly - then the historical proof that they clearly taught the trinity and rejected the heresies as not coming from the Apostles.
LOL!!
Yes...let’s NOT acknowledge the obvious false claims being made about early christians.
Let’s talk about ANYTHING but that!!
“Like I tell my wife when she groans once again at some of the OLD jokes I tell:
“Honey; I don’t need new material if I keep getting a new audience!””
LOL! Good one.
It IS nice to hear new material every now and then though - isn’t it?
10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.Born of a Virgin...
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.So the Cannonized works of the Church say Mary was a virgin, every apostle of the church has testified of the Virgin birth.
1. a person who has never had sexual intercourse.Never means nobody, not God, not Joseph, nobody, no sex period.
A couple go on vacation to a fishing resort in northern Minnesota. The husband likes to fish at the crack of dawn. The wife likes to read. One morning the husband returns after several hours of fishing and decides to take a nap. Although not familiar with the lake, the wife decides to take the boat out. She motors out a short distance, anchors, and continues to read her book. Along comes a ranger in his boat. He pulls up alongside the woman and says, "Good morning Ma'am. What are you doing?" "Reading a book," she replies, (thinking "isn't that obvious?") "You're in a restricted fishing area," he informs her. "I'm sorry officer, but I'm not fishing, I'm reading." "Yes, but you have all the equipment. I'll have to take you in and write you up." "If you do that, I'll have to charge you with sexual assault," says the woman. "But I haven't even touched you," says the policeman. "That's true, but you have all the equipment."This is a lame, I mean really lame argument, you cold be breaking a lot of laws right now because tyou have the ability to, so, are you guilty of all of them?
ROTFL....what a statement, DU! What a Christian message! What an example of the love of Christ!
There is a reason that Christians don't think that Joseph Smith is a TRUE prophet. ALL of his prophecies did NOT come true.
How about you make a time line of those historical events?
I think you are skipping over those you don't like.
You know the outcome, and you magically jump to the conclusion that it was always that way.
When I post anything that is counter to your assertion that it was always that way, you accuse me of giving a false version of historical events.
Post a list of events in order, giving the date, and a reference for where you find it, and what it means.
You don't believe events as explained by "Mormons" yet you expect everyone to magically believe your version of events even though you have not provided references that say you are correct.
You provide me with links and then deny what it says when I post a copy of a passage found in that link.
That is hardly fair.
That is a tactic of lawyers to say, "I don't read it that way." The implication is that only those in the know can read.
It is very arrogant to give the answer "I don't read it that way so what you are saying is false."
yes.
Old stuff You only up to 8!
Nope: I'm merely posting what your ORGANIZATION has printed - no need for me to spin anything.
Are you sure you are not a trolls?
I just might be; would that make any difference in what your past controllers have printed?
|
Top Ten Joseph Smith Presidential Campaign Slogans
|
|
10. I did not have sex with that woman, or that one, or that one, or ... 9. Ask not what your prophet can do for you, but who your prophet can do. 8. The only thing we have to fear is that the husband will find out. 7. I am not a criminal. 6. Ensuring a better future for your daughters--I mean, children. 5. Leadership you can take to the anti-banking society. 4. A chicken in every pot, and a peepstone in every hat. 3. A kinder, gentler cult. 2. If you don't give me your wives and daughters, the terrorists win. 1. Would I lie to you?
|
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.