Posted on 01/17/2008 6:38:28 AM PST by tortdog
"They said all sorts of ludicrous things [about Romney]... that when he became president he would pass a bill for same-sex marriage."
The push-polling has hit other candidates too, but it highlights Mr Romney's particular difficulties in selling his candidacy to the religious right since he is a Mormon. While much attention has focused on the possibility of "firsts" in the Democratic race with a woman in Hillary Clinton or African American in Barack Obama as real shots at the White House, Mr Romney would be the first Mormon president.
It's something that's firing up the evangelical community, which is highly suspicious of Mormonism, claiming it is a perversion of the Bible and describing it as a cult.
(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.news.com.au ...
Bump those statements.
I couldn’t find a Common Sense Issues organization in Colorado.
Is this a Dem front group getting cover from an Australian paper?
There is info on it here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/06/us/politics/06push.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
http://www.newsweek.com/id/91664/page/2
And it’s official site is here:
http://www.commonsenseissues.com/About.aspx
It’s site for Huckabee is here:
http://www.trusthuckabee.com/site/c.jpIRKUOwFqG/b.3580423/k.BD74/Home.htm
The Pope & the Catholic Church think they have a monopoly of all Christ-based authority--not truth. Even the current Pope while denigrating Protestant authority at the church level (example: authority to administer sacraments) doesn't label Protestants as heretics.
I grant you that some lies have been told about Mitt (by people from various walks of life), but you have to be honest. . .Mitt has told a few himself.(You ARE honest, aren't you?)
I honestly haven’t spent much time following him. I know Romney has been wrong on some things of little consequence (family says Romney marked WITH MLK, evidence suggests it wasn’t the same day). And I believe that he has self-blustered in areas that he didn’t need to (e.g., gun-toting love to hunt Mitch).
The former could be explained due to family legend (besides which one witness claimed to have seen the two march together but now isn’t as sure). The latter?
Dumb move. Not sure why he did it.
It's a Yes, but...
You: That is a false statement. Jesus Christ is the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament. He is the Creator of this earth. He came to Earth to atone for the sins of all who will follow him. He died on the cross for that atonement. That atonement provides that all will be resurrected after we leave here. He is my personal Savior. Anyone who would make a false statement like that is a bigot. He will be the Judge of all of us when we return to him.
Let's, see. For doing the same thing LDS leaders have done--referencing Jesus as a creature and a saved being-- I'm accused of saying something false & being a "bigot." Well, was LDS apostle Bruce R. McConkie a "bigot?"
"Christ is a saved being” (McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol. 3, p 257) “Modern revelation speaks of our Lord as he that ‘ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth ‘ (D&C 88:6). Christ's rise to the throne of exaltation was preceded by his descent below all things. Only by submitting to the powers of demons and death and hell could he, in the resurrection, serve as our exemplar of a saved being, one who had placed all things beneath his feet. ‘I am Alpha and Omega,’ he said, ‘Christ the Lord; yea, even I am he, the beginning and the end, the Redeemer of the world. I, having accomplished and finished the will of him whose I am, even the Father, concerning me—having done this that I might subdue all things unto myself—retaining all power, even to the destroying of Satan and his works at the end of the world, and the last great day of judgment.’ (D&C 19:1-2.)” (McConkie and Millet, Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, vol. 1, p. 234)
(Please also see McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol. 3, p. 238 where he said Jesus "Needs salvation"...”Came to earth to work out His own salvation”)
I also believe it was another LDS apostle, James Talmadge who referenced Jesus as a "saved being."
Jesus as a creature:
OK. LDS believe "Heavenly Father" = an exalted man. You mean to seriously tell me that you somehow believe that Heavenly Father is an exalted "creature" but somehow his son isn't? Again, let's look at McConkie, who states that God became a God by being saved by obedience to laws: “The Father is a glorified, perfected, resurrected, exalted man who worked out his salvation by obedience to the same laws he has given to us so that we may do the same.” (McConkie, Bruce R. A New Witness for the Articles of Faith. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1985. p. 64)
So essentially, McConkie taught "Heavenly Father" was a saved being, too...and a creature at that!
Secondly, we all know that LDS believe Lucifer was a "created spirit" (Christians believe he was a "created angel"). And we also know that LDS believe that Jesus was an elder "brother" to all "created spirits"--meaning that Jesus was on the same level as Lucifer at one time...other than he was born first. In fact, in the NT reference to Jesus as the "Firstborn"--LDS take that literally:
James E. Talmage: "Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh" and also "Among the spirit children of Elohim, the firstborn was and is Jehovah, or Jesus Christ to whom all others are juniors." (A Study of the Articles of Faith, pp. 466, 471.)
On p. 466 of Articles of Faith, Talmage also says that Jesus was NOT the Creator of intelligences, which apparently had no beginning: (the spirits were "developed"--"organized"--since Joseph Smith didn't believe Jesus created anything out of nothing--from eternal "intelligences"):
God showed unto Abraham "the intelligences that were organized before the world was"; and by "intelligences" we are to understand personal "spirits" (Abraham 3:22-23); nevertheless, we are expressly told that "Intelligence" that is, "the light of truth was not created or made, neither indeed can be" (D&C 96:29)
I disagree with their beliefs where they contradict Scripture; I wish them no ill. If they attributed their soild families and squeeky-clean image to getting pleanty of fiber instead of evaporating gold plates, I would be right on their side.
You are posting opinions of priesthood leaders and arguing that they constitute LDS doctrine. The fact is that LDS scripture does not state:
* Christ is a saved being (even McConkie limits the description to being an exemplar of a saved being)
* God was one human
The reason LDS leaders have taught these principles is because Christ commented that he is doing everything that he has seen the Father do. Thus since Christ saved mankind, it makes sense that the Father has done the same thing to at one point in time.
McConkie and others use logic to come to their positions. But sometimes they are wrong, as McConkie has admitted on occasion.
Yet you choose to dismiss President Hinckley, a prophet, who has stated publicly that it is not LDS doctrine that God was once a mortal man. Why do you ignore an LDS prophet, and rely on the words of an LDS apostle? Convenience?
Thanks for the links.
I don’t know why it didn’t show up in my searches.
Bashing is part of their religeon so I don't ask them to stop.
It is like the Muslims killing non-believers. They can't help it, it is part of thier religeon.
I have to confess. You caught me.
Not only that, my Wife and I dance.
OK. You're familiar with BYU prof Stephen Robinson, I assume? He wrote: Also, the LDS believe that all apostles are prophets in the former sense, and therefore we often do not distinguish between apostles and prophets, but customarily use the term prophet for both. (Robinson & Craig Blomberg, How Wide the Divide, IVP, p. 62)
I find it quite interesting the way LDS apologists play with titles. In reality, Robinson acknowledges that an LDS "apostle" is on the same interchangeable plain as an LDS "prophet" like Joseph Smith. But look @ the downplayed way you reference LDS "apostles"--as mere priesthood leaders!
You are posting opinions of priesthood leaders and arguing that they constitute LDS doctrine. The fact is that LDS scripture does not state...God was one human
Let's revisit Robinson, shall we?
I'd say this comment of yours aptly qualifies as a disengenous response. Let's look at what BYU professor 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 scriptural doctrine and Mormon leader opinions...As if Joseph Smith would go around @ funerals & "opinionize" on how to become gods!!! --ESPECIALLY 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)
Robinson's acknowledgement that examples of homilectic sermons constitute doctrines "officially" taught by the church even if technically uncanonized means that you should stop trying to hide behind such a 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 to uncanonized teachings being "official" should make LDS apologists run & hide as false teachers...having been "outed" for using "technical" points to try to cover up obvious realities.
To summarize, using Robinson's own words, he 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 apologetic you just attempted has become moot.
(3) And why is that again? Because as Robinson--who at least on this point is more forthright than 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?)
Yet you choose to dismiss President Hinckley, a prophet, who has stated publicly that it is not LDS doctrine that God was once a mortal man. Why do you ignore an LDS prophet, and rely on the words of an LDS apostle? Convenience?
OK. You're too funny. I pick out--to use a BYU prof's own words--an LDS "doctrine...firmly and officially asserted by the LDS Church...so widely accepted by Latter-day Saints that [any] technical [clarifications have] become moot"...due to these sermonic expositions sourced in TWO LDS prophets (Smith & Snow) having become "in effect...normative" as "the church does teach [this] officially."
And what do you do in response? You pick out some obscure journalistic interview --also just as uncanonized--to critique me!
At least I can point to LDS curricula books to show that Snow's couplet has been widely taught in this & recent generations of Mormons. (Can you do the same about Hinckley's journalistic interview?) Tell me, how do you LDS apologists live with your schizophrenic selves? You bonk me over the head with a standard you couldn't even comply within your accusation of me!!! (And since when does a "journalistic interview" by a prophet out-trump generation after generation after generation after generation of Mormon teaching!!!) [I guess some folks just have more gall than others]
McConkie and others use logic to come to their positions. But sometimes they are wrong, as McConkie has admitted on occasion.
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 trying to exercise philosophical logic & outright false teachings (otherwise known as heresies) that you just told us are there.
IF you know anything at all about the history of "Mormon Doctrine," then this 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 reference it mistakes--but when a book is republished, those are fixed. I know many such "mistakes" in McConkie's '58 version were "fixed." But if mistakes continue in the 1966 & 1978 revisions--and you imply that you 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?
Backdrop of explanation: In his biography of his father, Joseph Fielding McConkie states that: On July 5, 1966, President McKay invited Elder McConkie into his office and gave approval for the book to be reprinted if appropriate changes were made and approved. Elder [Spencer W.] Kimball [of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles] was assigned to be Elder McConkie’s mentor in making those changes....My father told me that President McKay had so directed him. In addition to that, I am in possession of handwritten papers by my father affirming that direction. (The Bruce R. McConkie Story: Reflections of a Son, Deseret Book Publishers, owned by the LDS Church, 2003)
The only thing I understand is that you are a Mitt hater and spend countless hours posting your lies and destortions on these threads to try and sink his candidacy. Not very classy.
“* Jesus Christ”
If you’re arguing that Jesus Christ was not divine, you completely misunderstand the basis and teachings of Christianity. That may be why you misunderstand Christian problems with Mormonism.
I did read what you wrote. I have reread it. I still think you are in danger of according the constitution a sacredness it does not merit.
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.