Posted on 08/11/2011 4:29:28 AM PDT by Colofornian
...we pretty much know what kind of re-election campaign Barack Obama is going to wage: A relentlessly negative one, which...will focus almost exclusively on making the challenger seem unacceptable rather than defending the sitting president’s accomplishments. Thanks to Ben Smith at Politico, we also know roughly how the White House plans to “destroy Mitt Romney,”...By “attacking him as inauthentic, unprincipled and, in a word used repeatedly by Obama’s advisers in about a dozen interviews, ‘weird.’”
Weird how, you ask? Here’s Smith:
The character attacks on Romney will focus on what critics view as a makeover, both personal (skinny jeans) and political (abortion) … Democrats also plan to amplify what Obama strategists described as the “weirdness” quotient, the sum of awkward public encounters and famous off-kilter anecdotes, first among them the tale of Romney having strapped his dog to the roof of his car.
SNIP
...The crucial thing to understand here is that Romney’s Latter Day Saint affiliation isn’t just a potential liability among evangelical voters in Republican primaries. It’s a potential general election liability as well. In a recent Gallup poll, 18 percent of Republicans described themselves as unwilling to vote for a Mormon candidate — but that number actually climbed to 19 percent among Independents, and 27 percent among Democrats.
Who are these non-conservative Mormon skeptics?... theologically conservative/politically liberal Christians (mainly African American and Hispanic) who regard Mormonism as a dangerous heresy...secular liberals...who dislike L.D.S...positions...people who don’t have a particular theological or political ax to grind, who know Mormonism primarily through pop culture (from “Big Love” and “Sister Wives” to “South Park” and “The Book of Mormon”) and the occasional encounter with bicycling missionaries, and who have a vague sense of the L.D.S. church as little bit cultish, a little bit outside-the-mainstream, and a little bit, well, weird...
(Excerpt) Read more at douthat.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Thanks for info...
You are correct. You don’t have to understand the context, culture or languages of the Bible. Such things are not necessary for salvation. It is road to Heaven that is paved with good intentions, not the road to Hell.
But, the Bible is full of good instruction, so it would be good to get it as right as possible. And, I couldn’t be critical of you holding to a replacement theory - that the New Testament replaces the Old Testament - as many people do hold to that theory. But, I will tell you that the replacement theory makes a strange religion out of Judaism, one that Jews reject.
For example, President Obama, before he was elected, poked fun of the Bible on the issue of stoning. Thank goodness we’re not like that (meaning, I suppose, that we’re not like the Jews). But, the story of the prodigal son and the story of the woman caught in adultery speak specifically to situations where a person would be declared legally dead and, thus, deprived of their rights (the right of a son to an inheritance and the right of a wife to support).
If Jesus was into forgiveness, as opposed to the Old Testament way, why did the father say to the faithful son, “All that I have is yours”? Wouldn’t being forgiven restore the prodigal son’s share of the inheritance?
If Jesus was into forgiveness, why did he say “go, and sin not more.” Why did the woman caught in adultery have to go, if not because she no longer had any claim on her husband for support?
What Jesus taught and did in these circumstances was in keeping with Jewish understanding and practice (well, except that he was correcting the misunderstanding that expelling a rebellious child was to be forever).
On the issue of capital punishment, I will turn to the late Pope, who in a famous encyclical, put the Catholic Church against it. He did not deny that the Bible calls for capital punishment for certain offenses. But, he said, with advances in prisons, the need for capital punishment had come to the vanishing point.
Accepting for the moment the line of reasoning, the Pope was incorrect. People in life sentences without parole are among the most vicious murderers in the world. They murder fellow prisoners and visitors at a high rate. The only way to keep them from murdering is permanent solitary confinement and that has been determined to be a form of torture. The Pope glossed over this issue, and did not communicate that he understood the actual challenges involved with alternatives to capital punishments for those who are guilty of the most heinous crimes.
But, the discussion of whether we have the ability, humanely, to prevent murderers from continuing to murder is not a matter of faith or morals. It is a scientific matter. The Pope only embarrasses himself when he speaks “infallibly” on science as opposed to speaking on matters of faith or morals.
Now, as to the line of reasoning, that conditions change and, so, what the Bible says evolves, that kind of undermines the Bible, wouldn’t you say?
One last point. According to that dusty volume called the Old Testament, the punishment for false accusation is the punishment for which the innocent party is put at risk. When Jesus’ accusers offered their testimony to the Jewish court, they contradicted each other. They were false accusers. Under Jewish law, Jesus was to be set free, and the punishment of which Jesus was put at risk was to befall his accusers. Kind of gives a new insight into what was going on the night that Jesus was betrayed.
However, regular visitors to these threads (both sides) know that while I rarely participate, I will step in at times to point out and correct blatant falsehood. Your claim of 12 hours of church on Sunday, and 40 hours a week, and having to bring your 1040 so the bishop can tell you how much you owe, and no redemption for sin in the Mormon teachings, is an example of the type of thing I will correct.
I don't doubt that you were accosted in a hospital room by well-meaning but idiot Mormons. We certainly do not have a lack of those. And I will allow your stress of the situation stand to explain the really strange non-doctrinal conversation you quote.
But I will continue to point out blatant lies.
What you say about Catholics is incorrect.
Catholics (meaning Roman Catholics) see themselves as joined, first, with all fellow Catholics, as members of the same corporate body.
Then, joined with all other Christians with whom the Roman Catholic Church is in communion.
Then, with all fellow Christians.
Then, with all who believe in the one, true God.
Then, with all who believe in God.
Then, with all persons of good will.
In the announcement of the birth of Jesus, the Angel proclaimed peace and good tidings to all men of good will. So, that’s a pretty wide circle.
Furthermore, in the Joint Declaration of 1999, the Catholics and the Lutherans said that each was essentially correct in their beliefs. This might be taken as a template for the unity of the faithful.
Catholics are happy for anyone to join in their services, and are happy for anyone who is baptized to partake in communion and, if they are aware that non-Catholic Christians are in attendance, the priest will offer a absolution for sin for those who repent, so as to satisfy the Catholic rules regarding the taking of communion.
In contrast, non-Muslims cannot enter a mosque and non-Mormons cannot enter a Mormon Temple.
The Pope has said that all who are saved are saved by the blood of Jesus, but, as to whom this includes (or excludes) they cannot say.
Having been around the block a few times, I can say that the Catholics had not been so ecumenical in the past. For that matter, it came as a surprise to me to learn, when the so-called main line Protestants of this country reconciled with each other, that they had previously ex-communicated each other.
And, to make one correction, I had said that religions serve a wider range of people than those who are intelligent enough to see the goodness in the Ten Commandments and the principle, called the Golden Rule, that people should treat each other as they would like to be treated themselves. You characterize this range as “non-geniuses,” therefore expressing a belief that the many very intelligent people who are (or, in history, had been) religious are actually not so intelligent. I presume yours was an attempt an humor.
thx too
I think this Presidential campaign may serve to cause us all to think about what share rather than what divides us, since the choice the country must make is so clear.
Evil? Bwahaahaahaa.
Ok, in seriousness, there are sincere orthodox Christians that feel that they are protecting others from the "false" teachings of Mormonism. And to be honest with you, I have no problem with folks discussing the differences between our teachings. But there is a difference between civil discussion and angry, contentious arguing or spreading falsehood. Now some of the falsehood is not intentional, and I respect those that acknowledge that when corrected. But there are some that intentionally lie about what Mormons teach. I call these "lies for Jesus" and they clearly stretch the definition of what a Christian should do.
Then there are the spammers, who cut and paste pages of stuff (alas, we have them too).
Of course, since your eyes are now opened, we will have to take action. Expect a visit from two young kids with white shirts and ties riding bikes.
Then you haven't looked hard.
Besides the obvious, always mentioned 1Cor15:29, there are several sections in the Doctrine and Covenants (Mormon scripture) that discuss it at length. Section 124 (discussing the need for a temple and the relationship with baptism for the dead), section 127 (discussing the need to record such baptisms), section 128 (a lecture on baptism for the dead), and section 138 (it is called vicarious baptism there).
tarotsailor’s recollections may be somewhat incorrect in how the hours are distributed is about all. Keeping in mind that many wards, branches and families do things quite differently across the board, I will say that these just may be ts’s own experiences, not consistent with yours, or mine, or anyone else’s.
Some folks with certain “callings” will spend 40 hours or more a week in “service” to the church. That is not uncommon in the areas I have been in.
Then there is also the amount of “dead time” that certain folks have to deal with in the performance of their “callings”. The ones who run nursery for example. They get to arrive early, and stay late while the parents congegrate and social butterfly in the building.
Then there’s the YW/YM’s advisors who get to spend a lot of extra time not only preparing lessons for their weekly classes, but also the Combined activity. Which btw, is not one hour, it’s more like 2-3hrs, sometimes more depending on the location and activity.
Let’s also throw in the YM’s “scouting” (I use the word scouting loosely with regards to LdS, many know why). The advisor is also one of the scout leaders, so how many hours a week are spent in preparation for Sunday lessons, Scout meetings and then the supposed once a month outing?
Uhm, did you forget the church cleaning responsibility all members now have? Where they spend their Saturday off cleaning the bldg?
Baptism for the dead is a heresy. And a mormon woman who dies without being sealed in the temple, (which, btw is not Biblical), cannot be sealed once she’s dead, so she is not worthy to enter the celestial kingdom. She’ll get one of the “lesser kingdoms” according to mormon teachings. Especially D&C132 where it is proclaimed that without that eternal ordinance (polygamy/marriage), none are worthy. Why don’t we ask my wife why she’s so antsy about me rejecting mormonism? Because she believes that she will be “married off” to some other wanna be god.
Ex-mormons and people who refuse/reject the “gospel” in the spirit prison, etc. are doomed to outer darkness, a form of hell.
Omitting certain and various facts about mormonism is also a form of “lying for Jesus” T.P. and that ain’t cool.
Bears repeating.
Well I was asking you. This is an open forum, we can respond at will to other posters.
Again, what is your point?
You attack CAWW, call her deranged, and don’t back it up, then get all huffy when you are called on it.
. . repent of our sins. .
Mormon definition - DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS 58:43: “By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them.”
Mormonism requires that its followers live perfectly sinless lives - by virtue of their doctrine cited above. If a mormon commits a sin, all their sins (former and present) are placed back on their 'account' (DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS 82:7)
follow His commandments (including the things we call ordinances - like baptism), and we can become clean from our sins and be allowed to return to him after our deaths.
Note the wording here we can become clean . Mormonism pays lip service to Jesus' sacrifice and emphasizes that one must WORK to earn their 'salvation'. A mormon can never say unequivacally that they have 'done all' they can do to merit the grace of Jesus (2 NEPHI 25:23). In fact, any sin in their lives will prohibit that grace (MORONI 10:32).
Odd, I seem to recall that it was Christ that instructed his followers to "be ye perfect." You know, sermon on the mount and all that.
Can TP state unequivically that he is perfect?
Nope, far from it. Thankfully the atonement of Christ allows me to repent and draw closer to Him and His challenge to become perfect, though.
Sounds a lot like a tempest in a teapot, or something bad up out of whole cloth.
I don't agree with your religion but want you to have the absolute freedom to exercise it, nor would I mind a Mormon President as long as he respected the Constitution.
I simply took issue with the fact that devout Mormons are 'evil'. Amazing that I'm being criticized for calling that statement into question.
Yes. I know devout Muslims and devout Mormons and the ones I know are not evil, as they have been so callously described as such here.
I would mind.
It would give those Mormon missionaries all over the world a selling point for their cult, "Gee whiz, Mormonism must be valid, after all the President of The United States is one".
No thanks.
Before Vatican II all non-Catholics would still be heretics, right? Do all non-Christians still go to hell after Vatican II?
I don't know how to characterize the statement that all devout Muslims and all devout Mormons are evil and bad for the country other than to call it deranged.
What would you call it? Do you agree with it?
Why are you worried about Mormon selling points? How does it affect your life?
Hey Elsie,
I need that joke where 2 people meet, one is querying the other, are you such and such church, yes, are you such and such denomination. Are you such and such, category of that denomination? etc.
Do you still have that?
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.