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 ...
~”Posing a very vulnerable strawman to attack is a Mormon tactic we’ve become very familiar with at FR over the past several weeks.”~
Oh, a straw man argument? Let’s see:
“A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw man argument” is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
You mean like this one?
My post #355:
“1.) There is not a jot of LDS doctrine that contradicts the Bible, despite man’s regular misinterpretation of it.
2.) Mainstream Christians often demand that we defend our extra-Biblical doctrines by using only verses from the Bible, while simultaneously embracing many of their own extra-Biblical doctrines. This is hypocrisy.”
Your response (albeit without the courtesy to ping me) in #356:
“Ah, the standard cult response: ‘We don’t need more than one vague Bible reference [to promote baptism for the dead in this case] to support our cultish belief because we have extra-biblical evidence which supercedes the Bible.”
You, MHG, are the last person around here who should be complaining about straw man arguments.
~”The methodology of Mormons is becoming startling in the deviousness so openly displayed!”~
You are an excellent teacher.
ping ... wouldn’t want you to miss a chance a ‘good one’.
Excellent post on your reasons to vote for Romney. I’m not all the way there yet, but nice reasoning.
I can't go into a Jewish temple, nor can I partake of the Eucharist at a Mass, or walk into meetings at the Vatican. The pentagon seems to be off limits, Can I go into Cheyenne Mountain and see the big ring they have there? I think it's called a stargate.
Bogus examples. There currently is no Jewish temple, only synagogues which you can go and attend services. You can attend Mass and observe Eucharist, but I cannot attend temple and observe your ceremonies. Your other examples are just stupid do comment on.
I was not pleading ignorance, you have a guy powerfully testifying of Jesus, who at the same time says Jesus Said all creeds were abominations and you say he is denying Christ? Do you even know how to get to reality from where you are?
2Co 11:14 - And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
Yeah, right, somebody needs to follow links, so maybe I'll just include a bit from my page witch has the links.
I will distill my comments for both here and the latter of your post concerning Hippolytus. To your credit, you link to the documents hosted on a Catholic site. To your discredit you blindly recite regurgitated material found on dozens of similar mormon sites promulgated by FARMS. Hippolytus must be evaluated in the context of what he was arguing against. Thus Noetus is key to understanding the backdrop. Secondly, the term “Trinity” first appeared in the east in AD 180 used by Theophilus. Trinity was first used in the West around A.D. 213, by, Tertullian. So in your arguments, you not only align yourself with modalists like Noetus, but Jehovah witnesses too.
Not hardly. You state, excerpt and state, but you never link, I can find excerpts from any sufficiently large work to support any position, but in context the quotation can mean something entirely different. I link because my quotations are in context, you posted a carefully cut section without linking because... well, I'll let the Lurkers decide.
Oh, I get it, you made a joke. We’ll see later how well you do with ‘context’ later
Please note that my links refute what you are saying, I have refuted you with scriptures, with definitions, and with documents, yet you are sure of your position because it is founded on faith not reason.
I can hardly call canned arguments ‘refutation’. Certainly not with scriptures (as we will see), or definitions (though wrapped in Christianese), and documents (or lack there of for BOM)
what? My statements still stand so he was an apostle soon after the last revision, that still doesn't make it Cannon, just a very good study Guide.
As a member of the 70, he taught directly from your doctrinal standard works, as an apostle his instruction continued, he is not an authority on your doctrine, then who is?
Great, Mormon Doctrine is and was designed to be a study Guide for those learning about Mormonism, but it's not cannon, if it conflicts with cannon, then it is wrong, if it conflicts with the brethren, it is wrong. I know of many places it makes factual errors, but that is OK, Bruce R McConkie was not a perfect man, just a good one, who was called because the Lord saw him even as imperfect as he was as a tool he wanted to use at that time.
Remarkable, because he uses your standard works and the teachings of the prophet to ‘teach’ your doctrine. It is sanctioned by the mormon church, so if it is so flawed, why haven’t they directed the “factual errors” corrected? (crickets) So if you own apostles don’t know mormon doctrine correctly, who can I believe?
Maybe, even probably, but this has not been revealed, it is a logical construct just as the couplet, "As man is God once was, as God is Man can become" is. Do lots of Mormons believe this? Sure, is it doctrine? No.
This was taught by none less than Smith himself! Similar teaching was carried on by Young. Even McConkie understood that this is what was taught. IF their teaching was NOT based upon mormon doctrine or inspired voice of the prophet, then the who fundamental base of an active prophetic voice is flawed and the basis of your standard works. These are not flunkies, but the top mormon leaders, to refresh your memory:
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!.... I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see... he was once a man like us... and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves..." (T. of P.J.S., p. 345-346).
Apostle Orson Pratt said, "The Gods who dwell in the Heaven from which our spirits came, are beings who have been redeemed from the grave in a world which existed before the foundations of this earth were laid. They and the heavenly body which they now inhabit were once in a fallen state. They were exalted also, from fallen men to Celestial Gods to inhabit their Heaven forever and ever" (The Seer, p. 23).
Pratt also wrote "We were begotten by our Father in Heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; and again He was begotten by a still more ancient Father, and so on, from generation to generation, from one heavenly world to another still more ancient, until our minds are wearied and lost in the multiplicity of generations and successive worlds" (The Seer, p. 132).
Although not of apostle or prophet status Milton R. Hunter, wrote on behalf of the LDS General Authorities: "Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar to that through which we are now passing... He became God - an exalted being - through obedience to the same eternal Gospel truths that we are given opportunity today to obey"
The logical construct in mormonism requires a god to father god.
I told you, Jesus is the exception for he became a member of the Godhead before time was, thus he is God, from all eternity to all eternity. We came here to work out our salvation, Jesus was already "saved" or perfect when he as God created Time and later, the Earth, big difference.
Simple dodge to the dilemma that your christology fails when it comes to practical application. Since the ‘father’ of Jesus, according to your theology, had to have a ‘father’ to procreate the spirit child, who according to the prophet Smith himself followed the path of eternal progression makes it impossible for Jesus too to be eternal. As Jesus’ ‘father’ had to enter time to be a man and obtain his physical body, time had to be already created, so Jesus could not accomplish what had already been done. So where in your standard works does this work out for you – the Jesus exception?
I could argue my credentials, the only reason I listed them was you said I had none (you were wrong) but I don't believe years of study (Even though I have them) can equal spiritual experience and that, I have had, knowledge gained by dint of cracking books is great, but pales in comparison to revelation from God.
Deficient memory. Please review http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950542/posts?page=307#301 and refresh your memory (or even post 250 via link). I said as you quoted me:
U Said: You really don't know Christian doctrine very well do you.
You volunteered and still your ‘credentials’ are lacking in any adequate study of Christian theology, in fact the immediate context of my original comment was your equating the simple attendance of a Christian church service and equaling the knowledge of Christian doctrine. What you have shown me in the above that you and other mormons don’t really have a grip on your own theology, let alone Christian.
I may not be a professional theologian, but I stayed in a Holiday Inn last night...
Heretic, thought only Marriott was allowed for mormons :)
… I could haul out the big guns, and you would probably cease to respond to me, or I'd get banned or some such, but I am content to just shoot your six-shooter out of your hand every time you draw.
I am shaking in my bunny slippers
Yep, that is Momrons Doctrine too, Jesus, or his servants wielding his power, for they are one...
You conviently added to stated Christian doctrine “or his servants….etc”. That is not Christian doctrine, so it is incorrect to add ‘too’.
Something you obviously don't understand, for it was lost from the Bible. Here it is in the D&C:
Ah yes, the ‘ol left out of the Bible routine. Do you have proof, such as an early MS that contains this great gem of wisdom?
Consider an infant who lives two day and dies……..
You do not understand the character of God. He will not hold accountable those who are unable to make moral decisions. Examples:
"Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it and they shall possess it" (Deuteronomy 1: 39)
"So he said, 'While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who can tell whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me" (2 Samuel 12: 22-23)
“But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?" (Jonah 4:11)
“Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."( Matthew 19:14)
There are many other Biblical references to permit one to conclude that it is within God's power and scope to extend His loving grace and favor to small children just as He does to the committed believer. Revelation 20:12-15
Well here is a new twist, I though every one except the son of perdition got to make it to at least one level of heaven. And when you read the greater context this extract is placed within, you will find that there is no reference to any during this judgement not being cast into hell. In the context of Phillipians 4:3, and Revelation 3:5, 13:8, and 17:8 the names in the book were already there because of belief in Jesus, not of any works. So how could Paul claim he was in the book of life when his ‘works’ were not tried, because he accepted Jesus Christ by faith and not of works.
Stop right there, so I used an impossible interpretation? ROTFLOL! there's got to be a tag line in here somewhere. So since you don't agree with my interpretation, it does not exist, or is impossible and thus you don't have to refute it? really this is funny! and the whole rest of your argument is just self congratulation on how right your interpretation is, so I won't include it here.
In a word – yes, here for the ‘lurkers’ is the first example of your inability to argue within the context of the passage. That context was clearly presented. Only one citation in the entire bible regarding this act and clearly from the context Paul was speaking within he was referring to people OUTSIDE of the church and not a practice of the church itself. All 4 of the interpretations make this link firmly.
I am quite sure that both you and I could find scholars aplenty who support our views, through the miracle of the internet and google, however your stance of "there are only four possible interpretations and none agree with Mormonism" will be just as destroyed if I only point out that it is my interpretation, therefore it's possible, therefore your use of absolutes makes you wrong.
You can’t even follow your on posts. I provided greek words in an earlier example that could have conveyed the subject. The word used didn’t support your assertion. That is not ‘interpretation’ but simple dictionary work. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul uses first person plural (i.e., "our," "us," "we") to refer to Christians but when he gets to verse 29, he then switches using second person ("they"). Hence, he does not include himself or the Corinthian church with this practice (v. 29: "what will they do" Not: "what will we do"). Lurkers will see that you cannot handle context.
I have specifically tried hard not to "invalidate" your faith.
ROTFLAICGU
You seem to expect that I will bow my head and just shuffle off, muttering, but I wanted to be right...
Talking about yourself again I see.
Obviously, I am forced by your attacks to bring up history and doctrine that supports my view which means it invalidates yours. Don't want this stuff aired? Stop attacking. /I>
You know, you threw down an awful big challenge to look to the word of the witnesses regarding the bom’s authenticity but only here crickets in reply. Is this an example of not wanting this stuff aired? I also note that thought you could explain off the top of your head changes in the bom over time I still hear crickets churping. And we haven’t even begun to scratch bom (non)archaeology and gross contradictions between D&C, bom and POGP let alone the Bible. If this is what is sticking in your craw, perhaps you shouldn’t be playing in the kitchen.
Luckily for you, attacking Momrons and Mormonism seems to be OK in todays society, where a similar attack on Jews, blacks or women would get you (metaphorically) tied to a stake in the public square and horse whipped.
Maybe it is you that need the Waaaaaaambulance.
Please Believe me when I say I am really good at invective, if I were attacking you, you would most defintatly know it, Instead I am merely defending my right to believe as I wish without others defining my faith for me.
Lessee, this is the second threat of this kind in this posting. I certainly hope it is of the caliber of Smith’s against the three ‘witnesses’, if so I’ll have the popcorn ready. Such ad homem attacks are usually the refuge of the desperate. But then, of course you are free to define my faith for me, hmmmm. But then you have your sacred underwear, mine are asbestos.
As my Mom once told me, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!
Isn’t that what Smith’s mommy told Smith and his dad after digging throughtout New York state with their funny little stone?
Well, the Word Godhead is in the Bible, the early christians believed in a sperate God and Jesus (Godhead), the Greek and Hellinistic influences on the Catholic Church are irrefutable to anyone who will actually look at the record. (Yes, I am linking Wikipedia because I don't want to add a ton of links here, this has already gotten too long.)
Right, wiki the infallible resource. And irregardless that your biblical proof texts don’t stand the test of scrutiny even at the usage of the greek. Further more the first Christians were Jews who accepted the monontheistic teachings of the faith and would flatly reject polytheistic beliefs (don’t believe that, ask the Romans).
IMHO, the rest of your argument boils down to "IF you were right we (Trinitarianists) would have interpreted the scriptures that way while we were translating them, since we didn't you are wrong."
Here is another fine example for the lurkers out there on how mormon apologists fail context and common sense 101 and why so much anger is being generated towards me. The passage in question again is:
Colossians 2:9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form
hoti en auto katoikei (3SPAI) pan to pleroma ten theotetos somatikos,
This is one of mormonism proof texts to prove that the ‘godhead that they believe’ listed here, negates and contradicts the Trinitarian understanding of God. For reference, the mormon definition of ‘godhead’ is:
Doctrine and Covenants 130:22: The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.
Thus they teach that Father God is a resurrected man with a physical body. He has a Father-God above Him. Christ is a separate resurrected man with a physical body; Holy Ghost is a separate man with a spiritual body. These three are totally separate Gods. Is this what is really being said by this passage? The dispute can be focused upon the Greek word here for Deity – Theotes.
Theotes refers to the essence and nature of the Godhead, not merely the divine perfections and attributes of Divinity (which is a different Greek word (theiotes). Christ, as Man, was not merely God-like, but was in the fullest sense, God. Greater detail can be found at http://www.preceptaustin.org/colossians_28-15.htm#2:9.
Here mormons fail because they try to rely upon the translation absent the underlying greek word. Godhead is only found in the KJV as well as Douay-Rheims and Young’s literal) it is generally translated ‘Deity’ in all modern translations. So, relying upon King James English, mormons have fashioned an argument that avoids the actual pesky greek that denies their positions and assertion of their ‘godhead’.
The proper application of the greek in this instance provides one of the strongest Trinitarian statements found in the Bible. For Christians Godhead and Trinity are interchangeable and the same.
I am going to skip a bunch of blovation here...
What is skipped here is a short list of mormon scriptures that he challenged me earlier to produce. I encourage everyone to go back and re-read this list that he is ducking in his reply.
That is funny, every time Jesus refers to himself or the Disciples refer to him as "The Son of Man" they are referencing a specific Messianic Prophecy in the Book of Enoch.
Now we enter a funny little phase about the psudeographic book of Enoch. As I stated, it was around at the time of Christ, but did Jesus refer to this or the Book of Daniel (7:14). The phrase ‘son of man’ is specifically referenced within Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71). The Similitudes of Enoch do not appear in early versions of Enoch, and is unlikely that this was the specific reference Jesus was speaking of. Greater discussion found in Harper’s Bible Dictionary.
Catholic church fathers? or other churches, funny that the Book of Enoch was used all the way up until well after the OT was compiled, and only fell out of use when everything including the services were moved into Latin the Pope did not have the Book of Enoch translated into Latin, so it gradually fell out of use.
Again, lacking knowledge you stick your foot into your mouth. Ireanus (150) and Eusabus (325) considered it scripture, but the majority of others at the time didn’t. The Jews dropped Enoch by AD 90, and it was not found in the LXX (greek version of the OT). As the church in AD 90 still had a strong Jewish background, and concurred with the Jewish decision. While Jude quotes from it, that in itself doesn’t necessarily endue it as a canonical book. To follow mormon logic on this manner, the greek philosophers Paul quoted should also be canonized.
Joseph dictated it like a story, word by word, sometimes faster, sometimes slower, not letter for letter. the differences of the spelling of words by the different scribes should be proof enough of that for you since apparently his word is not.
Again, I am not talking about ‘spelling’ changes or minor grammar. What I am talking about are significant re-writes that I posted and you some how failed to answer ‘off the top of your head’. Readers lose out, but some of these discrepancies are listed on the previous post. Far to many for simple scribal error.
They were his papyri, just not the one from which the book of Abraham was translated, they don't even match the Description of those papyri by Joseph, or third parties.
Again from the November 27, 1967, the Mormon-owned Deseret News announced:
Included in the papyri is a manuscript identified as the original document from which Joseph Smith had copied the drawing which he called "Facsimile No. 1" and published with the Book of Abraham.
In fact the papyri was turned over to the famous mormon Egyptologist Hugh Nibley. Upon further investigation at a meeting held at the University of Utah on May 20, 1968, Dr. Nibley made these comments:
Within a week of the publication of the papyri, students began calling my attention... to the fact that, the very definite fact that, one of the fragments seemed to supply all of the symbols for the Book of Abraham. This was the little "Sensen" scroll. Here are the symbols. The symbols are arranged here, and the interpretation goes along here and this interpretation turns out to be the Book of Abraham.
Here is your irrefutable MS for one of the standard works.
Thank you.
TO ALL WHO WANT TO HELP US TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE ABOUT CHRIST AND HOW HE GUIDES HIS PEOPLE ON EARTH.
If this thread is like most others that have anything to do with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or as we are more often called, the Mormons, it will soon be taken over by those who, for reasons of their own, choose to put down my Church, and those of us who worship with it.
We find no problem with people who really want to talk to us about converting to their religion, we spend a lot of time doing it ourselves.
What we find offensive is when people leave out part of the truth to make a half-true lie , or when some one renames something, that we find important or sacred, so it sounds like gutter talk.
I do not know how to tell the difference all the time. There are some Handles that keep showing up, and they are easy to spot. Sometimes, though, I have given a hard and not so kind response to some who honestly care for us and our salvation.
Please forgive us if we get you mixed up.
Thanks for your time,
fred
Oh, a straw man argument? Let’s see:
“A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw man argument” is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
+++++++++++++++++++
Just watch the “straw man” postings telling the world about how we, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, believe. Then, to divert attention from there activities, they say the old line of “look at them, not at what we are doing”.
I can sympathize with your feelings...
I have fears as well for the whole of Christianity (or at least how Liberals, and non-Christians view us) were Huckabee to be elected, frankly.
Well, you are the king of Bible Lite!
Sorry, I mistakenly left you out of the more sacks ping. I’ll correct that in the future.
This reminds me of the recent story where a babysitter, in having fun, swung her charge around in a room while he was in a sleeping bag. The toddler's head was hit on the wall & died. Nothing re: bad intent in this death...I mean other babysitters & parents have left small objects around in which babies & toddlers have choked to death on.
It just seems to me that if you have 70 eyes & ears (the number of LDS general authorities) all looking at the truth welfare of the church, they're going to notice the spiritual hazards laying on the floor where the "still milk" drinkers are crawling around.
Some folks like Romney earned big bucks as a venture capitalist, but truth isn't a venture guessing-game enterprise where LDS apostles sling it in a sleeping bag, slap a title "Mormon Doctrine" on it, and hurl it around Mormon living rooms hoping the milk drinkers won't have their heads slammed spiritually by the false conjectures and outright heresies that you repeatedly keep telling us are in there (of course, you word it in much softer language; but you keep talking about it as if it's Mormon kryptonite)
So...frankly, DU, your response re: McConkie is disengenous. It only explains McConkie's 1958 version of "Mormon Doctrine." Anything republished since then--with FULL APPROVAL OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY--and anything that's remained in there in its last reprint--was done with full First Presidency & General Authority oversight.
McConkie as a solo target applies only to 1958. Any critical assessments or putdowns of republished books of "Mormon Doctrine" since then is an outright slam against the entire First Presidency & General Authorities & the editors & publishers of the book. Many authors make as you call it "factual errors"--those are fixed. I know many such "errors" in McConkie's '58 version were "fixed." But if ensuing "factual errors" haven't been "fixed"--and you imply that you openly acknowledge that's the case--then it's not just a one-man doctrinal show.
So you need to come clean. Does your assessment above apply only to McConkie's 1958 version, or ensuing versions as well?
Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks.
Another disengenous response, DU. Let's look at what BYU professor Stephen Robinson has conceded (tho he tries to make a false distinction between official, official doctrine and just plain "quasi" doctrine which is "officially" asserted by the Church--as if there was such a thing!!!!!!!!)...you try to make a false distinction between official doctrine and Mormon folk beliefs...As if, as Godzilla pointed out, Smith would go around @ funerals & teach "folk beliefs" without the LDS church attempting to counter or correct it for 150 years.)
Robinson: The official doctrine of the Church on deification does not extend in essentials beyond what is said in the Bible, with its Doctrine and Covenants parallels, and in D&C 132:19-20. Again, don't misunderstand me; there can no doubt that the DOCTRINE of deification is FIRMLY AND OFFICIALLY ASSERTED BY THE LDS CHURCH. I am only trying to sort out what is canonical from what is homiletical for the benefit of non-LDS readers...To the scriptural passages above I WOULD ADD LORENZO SNOW'S EPIGRAM AND JOSEPH SMITH'S STATEMENT IN THE FUNERAL ADDRESS FOR KING FOLLETT THAT GOD IS AN EXALTED MAN. NEITHER STATEMENT IS SCRIPTURAL OR CANONIZED IN THE TECHNICAL SENSE, AND NEITHER HAS BEEN EXPLAINED OR ELUCIDATED TO THE CHURCH IN ANY OFFICIAL MANNER, BUT THEY ARE SO WIDELY ACCEPTED BY LATTER-DAY SAINTS THAT THIS TECHNICAL POINT HAS BECOME MOOT. EACH OF THESE TWO QUASI-OFFICIAL statements ASSERTS FLATLY THAT THERE WAS ONCE A TIME BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF OUR CREATION WHEN GOD WAS HUMAN, JUST AS THERE WILL BE A TIME AFTER THE FINAL RESURRECTION AND JUDGMENT WHEN EXALTED HUMANS WILL BE GODS...To sum up...The belief that God the Father was once a human being rests mainly on two technically uncanonized sources (sermons of Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow) WHICH HAVE, HOWEVER, IN EFFECT BECOME NORMATIVE. THE CHURCH DOES TEACH OFFICIALLY THAT...EXALTED HUMANS...WILL EXERCISE DIVINE POWERS, INCLUDING THE POWER OF CREATION..." (Stephen Robinson, How Wide the Divide, IVP, 1997, pp. 87-89)
Finally, Robinson's acknowledgement that examples of homilectic sermons constitute doctrines "officially" taught by the church even if technically uncanonized...forever means that you should stop trying to hide behind this false distinction in light of what Smith, Young, McConkie & other LDS "prophets" & "apostles" have taught via either...
(a) ...tithe-produced products;
(b) ...products reviewed by The First Presidency and/or General Authorities of the Church;
(c) or taught from the tabernacle pulpits & have been reviewed by the speaker to catch any transmission errors.
The fact that even LDS leaders acknowledge these exceptions should make the LDS apologists run & hide as false teachers...having been "outed" for using "technical" points to try to cover up obvious realities.
To use his own words, Robinson has acknowledged that homilectic sermons indeed constitute...
(1) A doctrine...firmly and officially asserted by the LDS Church...
(2) Are often so widely accepted by Latter-day Saints as truth that the technical apologetics you consistently engage in, DU, have become moot.
(3) And why is that again, DU? Because as Robinson--who at least on this point is more forthright that most LDS--that these sermonic expositions, in effect become normative in the lives of LDSaints who may gobble up every sermonic word as pure gospel... AND because as Robinson said, the church does teach officially these points!!!
Official teaching...is official asserting...is official teaching & asserting. (Got any "technical" counters other than a gag over Robinson's mouth or unplugging his computer?)
Delf, first of all, has the JST been "canonized?" (If not, then why is the JST OK for LDS to cite, but not the NIV?)
Secondly, in light of other KJV "Canonized" passages like those listed below, which essentially bring to light the same thing as what's indicated in a non-KJV rendering of the 2 Peter 1:3 Greek, does it really matter?
...Christ...In whom are hid ALL the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (Col. 2:3 plus last word of Col. 2:2)
...I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and whom crucified. (1 Cor. 2:1-2)
We also know he was not a trinitarian, because the trinity had not been invented yet...
That's like saying we also know he was not a monotheist, because monotheism had not been invented yet... (You'll notice that the word "monotheism" is not in the Bible, or in any of the LDS standard works)
That's like saying We also know he was not into a system of Christianity, because the word "Christianity" had not been invented yet...
That's like saying We also know he was not a Bible believer, because the word "Bible" had not been invented yet...
That's like saying that because Paul in Thessalonians uses the phrase "caught up in the air" that Paul wasn't a believer in some form of a "rapture" because the word "rapture" had not been invented yet...
I'd be curious from others, especially ex-Mormons, to tell me what common LDS words are not found in any of the standard works.
For example, is "temple recommend" in any standard work? How about LDS' retrogression of Heavenly Father? Where is that in any standard work--that he was once a mere man? What about "general authorities?" Where is that found? What about "stake presidents?" Is that "scriptural?" Or "high councilors?" "Wards?" Where are those to be found?
I thought the LDS church pretends to be a "restoration" of the original New Testament church pre-apostasy. Where do we find any of these titled leaders mentioned above in the New Testament? Where is "president" in the New Testament? (That's a distinctly American term coined by George Washington himself...so the Mormon god follows George?)
And speaking of titled leaders and the LDS church being a "restoration" of the original NT church, where are Mormon "pastors" (Eph 4:11)? Where are Mormon "prophetesses" like Anna in Luke 2:36 or Philip's daughters in Acts 21:9 (others in OT, too)? Where can we find unmarried 12-year-old deacons in the NT?
i wouldn’t be surprised if both Mormon and Christian ranks DECLINE after all this bickering and religious food fighting. It’s pathetic and not attractive in the least.
So what, that makes you the king of Bible Lite? I thought that was MHG.
Ah, another champion of Bible Lite steps in!
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.