Well you could say your first post was "prophetic" if I can use that term without being called a heretic.
Another political poll turns into a 1000+ post fur ball where the mods have to threaten to shut it down again.
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 08/03/2007 6:34:01 AM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Poor behavior |
Posted on 07/26/2007 5:03:33 PM PDT by tantiboh
Democratic political consultant Mark Mellman has a very good piece up today at The Hill on the baffling and illegitimate opposition among voters to Mitt Romney due to his religion. I liked his closing paragraphs:
In July of 1958, 24 percent of respondents told Gallup they would not vote for a Catholic for president, almost identical to Gallup’s reading on Mormons today. Two years later, John F. Kennedy became the first Catholic to assume the oath of office. Within eight months, the number refusing to vote for a Catholic was cut almost in half.
[snip]
Mellman also discusses an interesting poll he helped construct, in which the pollsters asked half of their respondents whether they would support a candidate with certain characteristics, and asked the other half about another candidate with the exact same characteristics, with one difference. The first candidate was Baptist, the second candidate was Mormon. The Baptist had a huge advantage over the Mormon candidate, by about 20 points.
[snip]
However, more recent polls have attempted to fix the anonymity problem. A recent Time Magazine poll (read the original report here), for example, got to the heart of the question by asking respondents if they are less likely to vote for Mitt Romney specifically because he is a Mormon. The result is not as bad as some reporting on the poll has suggested. For example, while 30% of Republicans say they are less likely to vote for Romney because of his religion, fully 15% of other Republicans say that characteristic makes them more likely to vote for him. And while many have reported the finding that 23% of Republicans are “worried” by Romney’s Mormonism, the more important (but less-reported) number is that 73% say they hold no such reservations...
(Excerpt) Read more at romneyexperience.com ...
I was not a disciple much longer than I’ve been one, so maybe I’m not very good at it, but I try. When HE tells me how I did, I’ll take it seriously. In the mean time, I’ll just stumble along and try my best, and fail as often as I do.
I try not to exhibit pit-bull blood. Even if I am an SOB. Golden Lab, that’s my ideal.
Your statement that you are “not going to play nice” provoked my reply.
One more thing, then I’ll stay out of your hair:
I wasn’t saying you ARE doing those things, but that you seemed to be, could be perceived as doing so. I apologize for appearing to you to be attacking you. That isn’t what I meant. Perception IS reality to those who perceive. For you to perceive it that way, I must not have expressed myself well. When we get to Jesus, we can talk about it then without misunderstanding. In the meantime, be well, and God Bless you.
Well you could say your first post was "prophetic" if I can use that term without being called a heretic.
Another political poll turns into a 1000+ post fur ball where the mods have to threaten to shut it down again.
Thank you.
I will play by the rules. Promise.
I’ll salt my responses, but I’ll keep the poison out. I will also leave off the sugar-coating.
While we are on the subject of rules, what are the rules on incessant spamming? I have seen threads killed by this, and IMO there should be some guidlines.
“So, I’ve been asked many times just what Mitt could do with the power of the Presidency. If Harry Reid can do all this as a Senator, imagine what a President could do with the Executive power to benefit the “Kingdom of Zion” instead of his own pocketbook.”
Your article points out some of the stuff that as a Nevadan, I only know about too well. People here will say “but Harry is just a MINO”, well a MINO who never gets called to task by the Nevada Mormon establishment. But Harry isn’t the only example, people should check out Randy White who runs McCarran airport and the nepotistic and shady deals he’s pulled, another fine Mormon. Even our Mormon Republican governor has shaded some deals, and I even voted for him (cause Titus is a Commie).
That’s very funny. Ok, your position is different from the Norman Geisler’s, namely, resurrection of the Flesh is ESSENTIAL for salvation. Following that logic, in the next life we will have Jesus Christ and all that he saved with bodies, but darn it, God that Father will not have a Body! Huh? Why then is resurrection of the flesh ESSENTIAL to the faith?
It is fine that you believe in a two spirit Godhead where God the Father and the Holy Ghost as spirits but don’t decry us when your theology makes no sense at all. In fact the logical conclusion is contrary to one of the essentials of Jesus Christ’s message, namely resurrection of the flesh. But, in your mistaken theology, if God is really only a spirit then when we are resurrected in the Flesh, we become not closer to God but we become further away?!?!?! Your position actually contravene’s Christ statement that He is “the Way” and no man comes to the further but Him, because in your view we become permeantly differently than the Father.
P.S. I would believe your point if you can show me where God is referenced as “only” spirit. I see references to God as light. Should I take that as God is “only” light?
You are correct, but as Geisler states, this resurrected body is not Flesh and Blood, but as Jesus Christ showed his disciples, it is Flesh, and Bone. Look it up, and you will have some fun.
“What do you imagine Mitt would do as POTUS to benefit the church?”
You guys must not work in the political arena.
Here’s what will happen, appointments will be made of “healthy, clean living Mormons” to all branches of government. While Bush is a religious Christian, I doubt he has a predominance of any one denomination. Because of the structure of Mormonism, all Bishops are businessmen, and indeed all Mormon men (of any worth) are priests. So it will be subtle, but the Mormon church will be first validated, then given plump appointments which will all be tied into the Mormon tithing system.
Now I don’t want to be apocalyptic, all I want to do is emphasize that Mitt and the brethren take care of their own. I gave McCarran airport management as an example, it is a good one. They aren’t known as the Mormon Mafia for nothing here in lovely Las Vegas.
“Ooooo, but coyote, Mitt didn’t appoint all mormons in MA when he was governor”...what say you?
The Book of Mormon gives us a deeper appreciattion and understanding of the atonement and how we should conduct our life.
Mosiah 3:
19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.
Alma 7:
23 And now I would that ye should be humble, and be submissive and gentle; easy to be entreated; full of patience and long-suffering; being temperate in all things; being diligent in keeping the commandments of God at all times; asking for whatsoever things ye stand in need, both spiritual and temporal; always returning thanks unto God for whatsoever things ye do receive.
Alma 13:
28 But that ye would humble yourselves before the Lord, and call on his holy name, and watch and pray continually, that ye may not be tempted above that which ye can bear, and thus be led by the Holy Spirit, becoming humble, meek, submissive, patient, full of love and all long-suffering;
If you criticize Mormons for temple worship then you must what the Apostles did after Christ ascended! You guys are making this too easy!
Unfortunately for [critics] it is quite clear that the New Testament apostles continued to worship in the Jerusalem temple after Christ’s ascension (Acts 2:46, Acts 3:1-10, Acts 5:20-42). Even Paul worshipped there (Acts 21:26-30, Acts 22:17, Acts 24:6-18, Acts 25:8, Acts 26:21). Paul is explicitly said to have performed purification rituals (Acts 21:26, Acts 24:18), and prayed in the temple (Acts 22:17, cf. Acts 3:1); he claims that he has not offended “against the temple,” implying he accepts its sanctity (Acts 25:8). Indeed, Paul also offered sacrifice (prosfora) in the temple (Acts 21:26, cf. Numbers 6:14-18), a very odd thing for him to do if the temple had been completely superceded after Christ’s ascension. Finally, and most importantly, Paul had a vision of Christ (”The Just One” ton dikaion) in the temple (Acts 22:14-21), paralleling Old Testament temple theophanies, and strongly implying a special sanctity in the temple, where God still appears to men even after Christ’s ascension.
Hamblin elaborated further on Paul’s vision of Christ in the temple during which he received his prophetic call:
Ananias says Paul will “see the Just One.” (Acts 22:14)
Paul then goes to Jerusalem (Acts 22:17)
“When I [Paul] was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance” (Acts 22:17)
Then he sees Christ/The Just One (Acts 22:18)
Christ tells him to leave Jerusalem (Acts 22:18) and go preach to the Gentiles (Acts 22:21).[1]
Hamblin then illustrates that Paul continued to offer “sin offerings” in the temple his conversion to Christanity:
Paul’s prosfora was participation in the fulfillment of a Nazarite vow taken by four men (Acts 21:21-26). The sacrifices required to fulfill this vow are described in Numbers 6:13-18. They include making a “sin offering” (Numbers 6:14). Therefore, Paul’s prosfora included a sin offering. (See Bruce, Acts of the Apostles, 3rd ed, p. 443-8.) Furthermore, Christ’s sacrifice is called a prosfora in Hebrews 10:10,14,18, and is directly correlated to the Temple sin offerings (Acts 10:3-9). Given all this, it is rather blatant special pleading to claim that Paul’s prosfora in the Temple did not include a sin offering.[2]
One non-LDS text notes the frequent use of temple language:
In general, any cultic activity to which the biblical text applies the formula ‘before the Lord’ can be considered an indication of the extence of a temple at the site, since this expression ... belongs to the temple’s technical terminology.[3]
I will surprise you and say yes indeed they worshipped at the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.
Now let me ask you this; did they perform washings and annointings, celestial marriages, endowments? Of course they did not!
Were any who wished, able to have free access to the Jerusalem Temple, the house of the Lord? Of course they were. There were no restrictions upon access - no one was kept from worshipping in the Temple.
The Temple (one and only) in Jerusalem in no way resembled the holy , exclusinve McMovie houses that the Mormon Church calls Temples that dot the entire world. Not the same at all!
>
Spammertoon
LOL
Yes, Peter, Ignatius, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Lactantius, Basil of Ceasaria all thought so.
So are you saying you understand esoteric Doctrine better than these Christian Father's?
There are many more examples of early Christians at the link but here are a few quotes.
Restoring the Ancient Church- Chapter 6 - The Temple
__________________________________
in the Clementine Homilies Peter explained that certain "hidden truths" were to be kept from the wicked.
And Peter said: "We remember that our Lord and Teacher, commanding us, said, 'Keep the mysteries for me and the sons of my house.' Wherefore also He explained to His disciples privately the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. But to you who do battle with us, and examine into nothing else but our statements, whether they be true or false, it would be impious to state the hidden truths."19
In the Recognitions Peter explained further that sometimes certain subtle tactics had to be used to make sure the hidden wisdom was not spoken in front of the unworthy:
But if he remains wrapped up and polluted in those sins which are manifestly such, it does not become me to speak to him at all of the more secret and sacred things of divine knowledge, but rather to protest and confront him, that he cease from sin, and cleanse his actions from vice. But if he insinuate himself, and lead us on to speak what he, while he acts improperly, ought not to hear, it will be our part to parry him cautiously. For not to answer him at all does not seem proper, for the sake of the hearers, lest haply they may think that we decline the contest through want of ability to answer him, and so their faith may be injured through their misunderstanding of our purpose."20
Meantime Peter, rising at the crowing of the cock, and wishing to rouse us, found us awake, the evening light still burning; and when, according to custom, he had saluted us, and we had all sat down, he thus began. "Nothing is more difficult, my brethren, than to reason concerning the truth in the presence of a mixed multitude of people. For that which is may not be spoken to all as it is, on account of those who hear wickedly and treacherously; yet it is not proper to deceive, on account of those who desire to hear the truth sincerely. What, then, shall he do who has to address a mixed multitude? Shall he conceal what is true? How, then, shall he instruct those who are worthy? But if he set forth pure truth to those who do not desire to obtain salvation, he does injury to Him by whom he has been sent, and from whom he has received commandment not to throw the pearls of His words before swine and dogs, who, striving against them with arguments and sophisms, roll them in the rand of carnal understanding, and by their barkings and base answers break and weary the preachers of God's word. Wherefore I also, for the most part, by using a certain circumlocution, endeavour to avoid publishing the chief knowledge concerning the Supreme Divinity to unworthy ears." Then, beginning from the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, he briefly and plainly expounded to us, so that all of us hearing him wondered that men have forsaken the truth, and have turned themselves to vanity.21
This tradition of keeping certain teachings secret was continued for hundreds of years after the passing of the Apostles. For example, Ignatius of Antioch, at the beginning of the second century, insisted to the Roman Christians that he knew certain truths about the government and hierarchy of the heavens, but he could not reveal them because the Roman Saints might be harmed by knowledge they weren't ready for:
I am able to write to you of heavenly things, but I fear lest I should do you an injury. Know me from myself. For I am cautious lest ye should not be able to receive [such knowledge], and should be perplexed. For even I, not because I am in bonds, and am able to know heavenly things, and the places of angels, and the stations of the powers that are seen and that are not seen, am on this account a disciple; for I am far short of the perfection which is worthy of God.22
In the late second and early third centuries Clement of Alexandria and his pupil Origen were quite specific about a secret tradition that existed in the Church in their day.23 For example, against the charges of the pagan Celsus, Origen retorted that the Christians weren't the only ones with a set of esoteric doctrines:
In these circumstances, to speak of the Christian doctrine as a secret system, is altogether absurd. But that there should be certain doctrines, not made known to the multitude, which are (revealed) after the exoteric ones have been taught, is not a peculiarity of Christianity alone, but also of philosophic systems, in which certain truths are exoteric and others esoteric.24
However, Origen distinguished the pagan mysteries from the Christian mysteries in that the Christians required that one be purified from evil for a period of time before initiation:
And since the grace of God is with all those who love with a pure affection the teacher of the doctrines of immortality, whoever is pure not only from all defilement, but from what are regarded as lesser transgressions, let him be boldly initiated in the mysteries of Jesus, which properly are made known only to the holy and the pure. The initiated of Celsus accordingly says, "Let him whose soul is conscious of no evil come." But he who acts as initiator, according to the precepts of Jesus, will say to those who have been purified in heart, "He whose soul has, for a long time, been conscious of no evil, and especially since he yielded himself to the healing of the word, let such an one hear the doctrines which were spoken in private by Jesus to His genuine disciples." Therefore in the comparison which he institutes between the procedure of the initiators into the Grecian mysteries, and the teachers of the doctrine of Jesus, he does not know the difference between inviting the wicked to be healed, and initiating those already purified into the sacred mysteries!25
At the turn of the third century Tertullian chided certain heretics, not for having esoteric teachings, but for making the higher teachings available to everyone:
I must not omit an account of the conduct also of the heretics--how frivolous it is, how worldly, how merely human, without seriousness, without authority, without discipline, as suits their creed. To begin with, it is doubtful who is a catechumen, and who a believer; they have all access alike, they hear alike, they pray alike--even heathens, if any such happen to come among them. "That which is holy they will cast to the dogs, and their pearls," although (to be sure) they are not real ones, "they will fling to the swine."26
Lactantius lamented the fact that Christian silence concerning the mysteries of the Kingdom engendered suspicion and base rumors among the pagans:
This is the doctrine of the holy prophets which we Christians follow; this is our wisdom, which they who worship frail objects, or maintain an empty philosophy, deride as folly and vanity, because we are not accustomed to defend and assert it in public, since God orders us in quietness and silence to hide His secret, and to keep it within our own conscience; and not to strive with obstinate contention against those who are ignorant of the truth, and who rigorously assail God and His religion not for the sake of learning, but of censuring and jeering. For a mystery ought to be most faithfully concealed and covered, especially by us, who bear the name of faith. But they accuse this silence of ours, as though it were the result of an evil conscience; whence also they invent some detestable things respecting those who are holy and blameless, and willingly believe their own inventions.27
As late as the fourth century, Basil of Caesarea reported that there was still a strong unwritten and secret tradition that he believed originated with the Apostles:
Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us "in a mystery" by the tradition of the Apostles . . . .28
In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all. This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected and contemned by the multitude through familiarity. "Dogma" [doctrine] and "Kerugma" [preaching] are two distinct things; the former is observed in silence; the latter is proclaimed to all the world. One form of this silence is the obscurity employed in Scripture, which makes the meaning of "dogmas" difficult to be understood for the very advantage of the reader . . . .29
Also, a fourth century Mesopotamian Christian document divides members of the Church into the "just" and the "perfect." And Guy Stroumsa of Hebrew University takes it for granted that "each category of believers receives a different type of teaching."30
Look up Margeret Barker, whom I referenced before. She has publish a few books on Early Christian Temple Theology. Have fun!
I saw 1040 and it probably dealt with taxes, so I down remember it; but I’m just now back and the other 3 were like Jonah’s vine: came and went before I had turned on the radar.
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.