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 ...
Baiting you while ignoring his own doctrine shows him to be both a heretic and hypocrite.
What else is new.
I'm glad to see that you finally admit that the past leaders of your Organization® didn't know what the hell they were talking about!
What was the REST of #2267? It’s GONE!
Information regarding indulgences....
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
The issue regarding indulgences vs. trinity is not on the same “plane”.
Trinity doctrine is considered central - the entire faith is dependent upon it, and it was evident from the beginning.
The issue of indulgences is considered to be an issue of private devotion.
A person can choose to take part in the practice - or not - and it doesn’t affect their status as a practicing catholic.
Your post is correct in stating there isn’t much emphasis placed on this matter anymore.
“Are you guys really going to start selling indulgences again?”
No...and the practice of “selling” them centuries ago was an abuse - a corruption - that the Church had to address and fix.
Hello!!
Just where are the SACRED Temple Ordinances in ANY of your scripture??
Unlike his past leaders.
To prove he agrees with their teachings, he is going to start buying indulgences.
Like Grasshopper; we've learned quite well.
Sometimes you just have to answer the question that should have been asked.
” and the only refutation is an opinion “
Oh?
and you have not inserted your “opinion” into your responses?
“and that opinion by an anonymous poster is considered to be authoritative by the Anti Mormons.”
What is your beef with being anonymous?
Is DelphiUser your given name?
Should I consider your version of history accurate just because you are a mormon?
The reference is found in the Book of Daniel.
Since the Book of Enoch can be proved to predate Jesus' ministry, indeed it is often said to predate the books of Moses (Enoch being spoken of historically by Moses in his five books.)
You are a poor student of these ancient books - and this one in particular (Note DU's arguement beginning to come unraveled). I'd be interested in which scholar in a peer-reviewed journal would actually hone up to such a statement. Even the most liberal textural scholars that I am aware of would not make such a rediculous claim. You assume that since it says Enoch it means he actually wrote it, well he didn't.
This book is termed 'Pseudepigraphy'. Most of these books (in the pre through post-NT timeframe) are actually anonymous (making no explicit claim to authorship), but were either (a) later attributed to someone other than the actual author; or (b) seem to imply--in the text-- an author other than the actual one.
Scholars have evaluated the various Enoch MS and conclude that multple authors contributed to the work until the parts were pulled together under at least one redactor. That is also why portions are dated around 200 BC, a far cry from the time of Moses.
There are five books of Enoch, there are five books of Moses, coincidence?
If the final redactor some time in the late 1st century AD was Jewish, then there would be no suprise. But then this point is founded on your unsubstantialble assumption that this book predates Moses writings.
So these unknown people who added this piece to the Book of Enoch, added something in the middle and nobody noticed?
You should really study more on old documents and transmittals. I said above that scholars have been able to identify the fact that it is a composite work, so it didn't go unnoticed. For example
"The chapters [1 Enoch 1-36] are a collection of traditions that have accreted over a period of time...Our earliest Aramaic manuscript evidence indicates that chaps. 1-11 were already a literary unit in the first half of the second century bce. As we shall see, chaps. 1-5 are the introduction to a longer number of chapters--either 6-19 or 6-36. Evidence in 1 Enoch 85-90 indicates that 1 Enoch 1-36 was known before the death of Judas Maccabeus in 160 bce. Hence we are justified in treating these chapters as a product of the period before 175 bce." Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah, George W.E. Nickelsburg, Fortress:1981
Martin McNamara writes: "No fragment of any part of Parables has been found in Qumran. For this, and for other reasons besides, some scholars doubt its pre-Christian and Jewish character. J. T. Milik maintains that it was composed in the second or third century of our era. However, contemporary scholarship tends to reckon the parables Jewish, and to assign their composition to the first century of the Christian era." (Intertestamental Literature, p. 71) Remember Similitudes are chapters 37-71.
Secondly pseudepigraphic were a common literary type and it was understood the authors were someone other than attributed in the writing itself. The fact that the final redaction has the sections you listed is no big deal - that is how it was finally put together sometime after the first century AD. Secondly, IIRC, among the DSS, the various sections of 1 Enoch were found as separate stand alone documents. Are you aware that the full 1 Enoch is from the Ethoiapian finding, 14th century AD?
Even if the Second Section of the Book of Enoch was added in the first century (while the Gospels were being written) they were so innocuous that nobody noticed this change in doctrine, nobody in the Catholic or Ethiopic churches complained about this addition?
Another flawed assumption. Enoch was not a part of either the Greek or Hebrew canon of scriptures (OT). Since it wasn't scripture, it couldn't be considered doctrine. Again, the Ethoiapian MS is 14th century, a little far removed for your analysis.
This theory on the Date may be overturned any day by the identification of a scroll containing the Second section of the book of Enoch...
Could well be, however the bottom line is that this book, in what ever form, was not considered scripture by the Jews nor later by Christians. Secondly, if the book in its entirety (highly unlikely given DSS evaluations) was 300BC (I'm being generous), it is still too YOUNG to support your other claims.
So you have two theories:
No, you have two theories. Not that Occam's razor will work only if you have the correct data set upon which to build an arguement. In this case, your 'theories' were invalidated right off the bat because of your lack of knowledge regarding the archaeological and textural history of the document, lack of knowledge on how the canon of the NT developed - especially in the first century. So if you want to wear tinfoil hats, be my guest. Both of your options do not stand the scrutiney of modern scholarship.
And what was #2278??
It was GONE when I got to it!
I am asking about the process, you claim the doctrine of the trinity is in the bible, --- its, not.
Is the doctrine of insulgences like that?
If it is, why don't you buy indulgences now?
Maybe you did and that allows you to preach hate.
Yeah, --- That's it.
I'm too far out for this; I must use DISH®.
And why does THAT upset you?
He seems like a good man - flawed perhaps, but aren't we all?
I knew you were from DemocraricUnderground.
They love him over there.
It does not require any actual refuting or answering, just the assertion, and then get on with your case.
YES!
That's EXACTLY how the LDS Organization® members do it!
So if we do not respond to you; you'll go away?
Then YOU don't get to go skiing much; except behind a BOAT!
I can't do that. I've got to make sure ya'll don't kill each other. It's my calling. :-)
And...
The Book of Mormon POSTdates ALL previously accepted Scripure, and trumps it!
"Dang you MormonDude!"
Stay away from my keyboad!!!
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.