Posted on 09/29/2010 3:05:05 PM PDT by zippythepinhead
Atheists and agnostics know more about major world religions than many people of faith, while Mormons can answer more Bible questions than their Catholic and mainline Protestant counterparts.
Those are among the somewhat startling conclusions about religious literacy in America the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life drew after surveying 3,412 Americans.
Some of the multiple-choice questions were relatively simple: Where was Jesus born and who led the exodus from Egypt? What religion was Mother Teresa, what day does the Jewish Sabbath begin and what is the name of Islam’s holy book?
Others were more obscure: What is Indonesia’s dominant religion? Which Christians teach that salvation comes through faith alone?
About half the Protestants (53 percent) couldn’t correctly identify Martin Luther as the person whose writings and actions inspired the Protestant Reformation. Fewer than half of Americans (47 percent) knew the Dalai Lama is Buddhist and only 38 percent correctly associated Vishnu and Shiva with Hinduism.
John Morehead, director of the Western Institute for Intercultural Studies in Salt Lake City, had already noted religious illiteracy in the general population as well as in the evangelical community. But he did not expect Mormons to top them in their biblical fluency.
“Mormons tend to emphasize Mormon scriptures like the Book of Mormon rather than the Bible in their devotional life,” Morehead said in an e-mail.
Even some LDS scholars were surprised to find Mormons at the top.
(Excerpt) Read more at sltrib.com ...
Why not I love all of my scriptures you the one with the hang up!
Guess it bothers you to talk of Christ!
This pretty strong light
26 And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.
“There were several Bethlehems in the area this one was in Jerusalem not the Bethlehem in Galilee.”
Bethlehem of Judea is the proper name of the town near Jerusalem. ~ restornu
___
There was ONE Bethlehem God chose. It wasn’t Jerusalem.-
aMorePerfectUnion
***
OK another one where it has gone over their head....
Again, God's timing is exactly carried out, because at Pentecost (the prescribed time Jews had been practicing for generations) God's Spirit came upon the believers in Jerusalem and His Spirit has been with us even unto today, just as Jesus promised.
Scripture tells us that His Spirit will not always strive with men. Your salvation and mine depend upon the integrity of God, not the best I can do to obtain His Grace.
When He promised the comforter would come and would remain with men until a prescribed hour, Salvation was immediately based on His integrity not mine or yours.
When He promised His Spirit would remain with us until the last hour, He is great enough to have kept His promise right throughout the past 2000 years.
In this simple thing--that what Jesus promised that His Spirit would not depart from believers, that those who believe on Him cannot be snatched from His hand, is where Christinaity is at variance with the founding assertions of Mormonism.
Men may argue how He has kept His promise--the myriad of denominations and the apparent dichotomy of Catholicism and Protestanism evidence men's arguing over the 'hows'--but one ought not doubt that He is powerful enough to keep His promises.
* * *
You asked regarding my assertion that the thief did precisely what God requires for Salvation, “Please, walk me through that verse so I can understand better why you see it that way.
John 6: 28 - 40
Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written,He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
In that short passage we hear Jesus explain what is the work God requires for Salvation--Jesus uses the metaphor of the manna from Heaven to signify the source of life He brings to men.
In that passage we also read the promise that those believing on Him will have this everlasting life. Jesus does not add baptism or temple ordinances or sanctified underwear or multiple wives ‘and so on‘ …
And lest a Mormon apologist try to read the passage ‘everyone that seeth the Son’ in too strict a way, Jesus in many other passages spoke of ‘eyes to see and ears to hear’ when referring to the gift of spiritual sight and spiritual hearing.
When Jesus was born, the road was approximately six miles in length from Jerusalem’s ‘city limits’ to Bethlehem proper. Bethlehem was not connected to Jerusalem like one of our suburbs of a major city today, Resty, regardless of what your ‘feeders’ are sending to you for posting.
It just occurred to me that God was VERY SPECIFIC
as to which of the Bethlehems He would have His Son
born in:
***
Matt. 2: 6. (And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda,)
6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
Micah 5: 2.
2 But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
Luke 2: 4.
4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
PSALM 122
David says: Go into the house of the Lord—Give thanks unto him.
A SONG OF DEGREES OF DAVID.
1 I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the Lord.
2 Our feet shall stand within thy gates, O Jerusalem.
3 Jerusalem is builded as a city that is compact together:
4 Whither the tribes go up, the tribes of the Lord, unto the testimony of Israel, to give thanks unto the name of the Lord.
5 For there are set thrones of judgment, the thrones of the house of David.
6 Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee.
7 Peace be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy palaces.
8 For my brethren and companions’ sakes, I will now say, Peace be within thee.
9 Because of the house of the Lord our God I will seek thy good.
Never said I dont sin. But if you accept Jesus as your Saviour, then go kill someone, are you still saved? Is it grace by Jesus by Hell by acts?
So if you accept Jesus as your saviour, but dont follow his laws, are you really saved? At what point do acts count? Do they only count negatively, but do nothing positively?
Not on this site they don’t.
http://mrm.org/jerusalem
http://mrm.org/jerusalem
lds teach Jerusalem.
If you accept Jesus as your Savior, He will change your heart.
Only God knows if you’ve accepted His gift or not.
I suggest if you say you are saved yet sin as much as ever - then you probably aren’t. But again that is between you and God - just like if you say you trust Him and then think you “earn” your own reward - then you have faith in your own efforts and not in Him who can save.
What do You believe about salvation?
If you are interested what we actually believe about the issue, then fine, but I'm not here to banter endlessly about a non mormon’s view about my beliefs.
This will be my last post on this topic. I suggest you read a little more than the anti sites if you wish you know what we actually believe.
BYU professor Daniel C. Peterson pointed out the absurdity of this argument:
To suggest that Joseph Smith knew the precise location of Jesus’ baptism by John (”in Bethabara, beyond Jordan” (1 Ne. 10:9) but hadn't a clue about the famous town of Christ's birth is so improbable as to be ludicrous.
Do the skeptics seriously mean to suggest that the Book of Mormon's Bible-drenched author (or authors) missed one of the most obvious facts about the most popular story in the Bible — something known to every child and Christmas caroler? Do they intend to say that a clever fraud who could write a book displaying so wide an array of subtly authentic Near Eastern and biblical cultural and literary traits as the Book of Mormon does was nonetheless so stupid as to claim, before a Bible-reading public, that Jesus was born in the city of Jerusalem? As one anti-Mormon author has pointed out, “Every schoolboy and schoolgirl knows Christ was born in Bethlehem.” [Langfield, 53.] Exactly! It is virtually certain, therefore, that Alma 7:10 was foreign to Joseph Smith's preconceptions. “The land of Jerusalem” is not the sort of thing the Prophet would likely have invented, precisely for the same reason it bothers uninformed critics of the Book of Mormon.[1]
It is important to note what Alma's words were. He did not claim Jesus would be born in the city of Jerusalem, but “at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers.”
Thus, the Book of Mormon makes a distinction here between a city and the land associated with a city. It does this elsewhere as well:
the land (Alma 2:15) and city(Alma 6:1) of Zarahemla;
the land and city of Nephi (Alma 47:20).
This is consistent with the usage of the ancient Middle East. El Amarna letter #287 reports that “a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi [Bethlehem] by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the side of the people of Keilah.”[2] (One over-confident 19th century critic blithely assured his readers that “There is no such land. No part of Palestine bears the nameof Jerusalem, except the city itself.”[3] While this was perhaps true in the 19th century, it was not true anciently. A supposed “howler” turns into evidence for the text's antiquity.
Thus, Joseph Smith gets it exactly right — the town of Bethlehem is in the “land of Jerusalem.” In fact, Bethlehem is only 5 miles south of Jerusalem: definitely “in the land,” especially from the perspective of Alma, a continent away. Even locals considered Hebron, twenty five miles from Bethlehem, to be in the “land of Jerusalem.”
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Jerusalem_vs_Bethlehem
I'm out. Do what you will.
Why do you guys keep saying this over and over and over???
How many times do you and yours have to be told that the bulk of us have read LDS MATERIAL, not just "propaganda" and such from so called "Anti" sites?
Repeating it often enough it becomes true? Is that the hope, or just catch the odd lurker unaware?
As it is there are a number of folks here exposing the truth about Mormonism that are former LDS members who studied the same Sunday school and "seminary" lessons you did, from the same material. The majority of the rest of us have copies of Mormon works personally on our shelves or have access LDS.ORG and such for the material we reference.
There are times in the interest of speed or due to some very good scholarship and materials such as charts and illustrations the sites exposing Mormonism "issues" are used in reference, but again since we are familiar with the first source material this second source material stands to the scrutiny in the face of LDS references.
So again, unless it is a trick (safe bet) stop acting as if you are ignorant of this fact.
Nice try. Bethlehem was a separate town in ancient times and outside the city of Jerusalem. The prophecy in Micah 5:2 confirms that Bethlehem was a town among the clans of Judah.
I wonder if Ripli is hoping that if he tells that whopper often enough and with enough faux sincerity that readers will swallow the mormon apologist kool-aid?
S.O.P.
Huh ??? TODAY Bethlehem is a suburb of Jerusalem. It was was a separate town in ancient times and outside the city of Jerusalem. The prophecy in Micah 5:2 confirms that Bethlehem was a town among the clans of Judah.
It is incorrect to look at Jerusalem today and fit it into the cities of the times when the prophecy was written.
The Mormon book is just wrong. And plainly so.
This agnostic is pretty happy that we represent better than the “faithful”
BTW, big Zippy fan, the Ding Dong Daddy from Dingburg stuff is Bill Griffith at his best
Paa Dansk: vidste du ikke?
Knew ye not?
Also: vidste i ikke?
Almost fifty years later the Danish is still in there.
Yeah... TWO of you!
Ganging up on us poor MORMONs again!
--MormonDude(But WE win in the end!)
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.