Posted on 10/29/2007 8:28:33 AM PDT by Invisigoth
The Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Mormons and a few other faiths have three things in common – they believe in Jesus Christ, that He is the Son of God and that He died and was resurrected for our sins.
So what’s the problem?
The political pundits continue to try and make Mitt Romney’s religious beliefs a big issue as he runs for the Republican presidential nomination. Different denominations of Christianity are just that – different denominations – which means different worship practices of the same fundamental Christian beliefs.
Some people have commented that they cannot support Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. When they are pressed to explain why that is objectionable, they stutter. Still others are skeptical of Mitt Romney based solely on hearsay or lack of knowledge about Mormons.
(Excerpt) Read more at northstarwriters.com ...
You listed a bunch of books about the church fathers, not the writings of the church fathers themselves. Have you read Augustine’s “City of God?” That’s easy to find.
Thank you for #110.
ROFLMAO....
Man, Spiffy, you need to unglue your lips from Mitt's special underwear.
Mitt went to the pro-abortion groups, met with them seeking their endorsement, and pledged his support for their agenda, for Roe v Wade, for legal abortion, and for government funding of abortion.
"....a manner which did not assert a pro-life position" .... wow, that's just pathetic.
Alright, maybe 1/100th of the Reader's Digest Version of your Bible narrows it down to this..But Christ taught about $; stewardship; legalism; spiritual slavery; consuming Himself; directly challenging others in a loving way; images about heaven; what marriage was originally intended to be; I could go on and on.
But in one sense you're right on the $: Why is the main goal of LDS to become a "god" when the center of our universe is meant to be Jesus Christ?
You are most welcome.
What about the Bible compilation itself during the Council of Nicaea? Entire books were removed. Sometimes because they were redundant, but sometimes they disagreed with a majority of the religious leaders. Incomplete books were left in and finished (added to). Writings may have been edited into existing books. Books were removed and mention of those books were edited out. Some just never made it in for whatever reason possibly even something as simple as space constraints.
Some we know exist but were never found. If they are found do we consider them not Gospel? Not Scripture? Heretical because they weren't included in the Bible we know now?
The first epistle of Peter to the Corinthians? Not 1 Corinthians but the actual first epistle. If found what do we consider it?
Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthias the Acts of Andrew and Jon The Apocalypse of Peter? Just to name a few that are known were in the Bible but removed during the Council of Nicaea. For one reason or another for the sake of majority consent when trying to unify a religion under Constantine who was not even Christian until his death bed.
Many works of Peter weren't included in the New Testament yet Peter is the Rock upon which "I will build my Church". Kind of an important person for his books to be left out except for two general epistles. If you look at who is included more you would think that Paul is the Rock and not Peter.
Were Peter's works lost, or was he considered heretical? If they were lost the Church at the time must not have considered them that important. If they were considered heretical then either the Rock fell or the Church was corrupted by Man. Were they not included because of space or were they not included because the majority at Nicaea said no?
So at some point in time even the great house of the Catholic religion who was instrumental in compiling the Bible we know today that Christian religions use in some translation was "added to, taken away from," and went "outside of scripture."
The passage particularly in Revelations 22:18-19 is probably the most oft misinterpreted as a warning against other books being considered scripture. Revelations was actually penned chronologically before 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Jude, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus.
So did adding those books make them "of Lucifer"? If they are "of Lucifer" then why are they in the Bible and considered the infallible Word of God?
Reading those verses as you do actually nullifies much of the Bible itself.
Absolutely...but neither practiced polygamy nor sought to have sex with females barely into puberty as BOTH Mohammad and Joseph Smith did. Nor did either vary from the virtual word told to (or in Paul's case passed down) to him by Christ.
Actually, if you think about it in the same vein as you mentioned, what if the question was: “How is your salvation going to fare if you intentionally have a few hundred Americans murdered just for the fun of it?”
Baptists will of course say that it is not affected at all, they get a free pass.
Bless you.
Proverbs 3:5
5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
This would be my response to you regarding your questions about whether the right books are in the Bible. If the right books are not in the Bible then God could not protect his own words . . . and that’s not God. Don’t lean on your own understanding. Trust God.
There happens to be an excellent history about Smith written by the neice of a former president of the LDS Church. It is called "No Man Knows My History," by Fawn S. Brodie (the same brilliant historian who disclosed the relationship of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings)...Open Up Our Minds, and our Mouths Will Show Fourth Thou (the Lord's) Praise. You have a blessed day also!
Setting aside the issue of plural marriages, that were LEGAL at the time and place where they occurred, what was the age of marriage from 1830 to 1900? How rare was a 13 year old bride? Once you can accurately answer these questions, you can talk about the conduct of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Until then, clean out your own closet!
Bless you, fellow conservative.
Well, I wasn’t looking for a book reading contest so much as reacting to your statement that the early christians believed they could become gods. It’s not true. I asked if you had read the church fathers which is probably the easiest way to learn about what the early Christians believed. The reason I asked is that you are telling other people what early Christians thought but if you haven’t read the church fathers you are not in a position to make a judgment, much less express it.
If I had to vote for a nominee today, I think I would vote for Mitt, even though I admit that I have been a bit disappointed every time I have seen him.
The problem is that he seems a little robotic in Rudy's dazzle. Unfortunately, as almost everyone here seems to agree, Rudy is ideologically unacceptable. If Rudy were not in the race, I think Mitt would be running away with it.
It is a national election and not a Freeper poll that we are going to have a year from now, and I think only Mitt and Rudy are capable of defeating Hillary. With Rudy unacceptable, that leaves me only one choice.
Mitt may not be our ideal candidate, but he is a smart articulate guy who has, at least in his personal life, solid, conservative values. And anybody who can get elected governor of Mass. clearly has appeal across the idealogical spectrum.
Fred is a nice man, but he does not inspire. Fred against Hillary would be a replay of that good man Bob Dole against energetic, chatty Bill Clinton.
The political winds are blowing against us just now. It is no time to try to move the country rightward, unless we just want the moral satisfaction of feeling we caste a righteous vote, even if it was in a losing cause.
Mitt looks to me like the man who could take Hillary on. I don't think the country really wants Hillary but it wants change. If we offer someone with broad appeal, we can win this thing.
I know this is all new to you but I read that when I was in kindegarden or as a new convert.
Brodie loves to imply the Jefferson child talked about could be any male memeber of the Jefferson family the DNA was not conclusive enough to which male it was!
You should say whether you are personally affiliated with North Star Writer's Group.
I'm not sure of forum rules here, but I suggest, in the interest of honesty, you post a disclaimer with the threads you post stating your affiliation.
Are you affiliated with any specific presidential campaign?
As far as I know, candidate press releases are allowed here with the campaign website being plainly stated as the source. Attempts to "back-door" press releases or campaign-generated opinion pieces through third-party websites IMO is dishonest.
But Mormons do practice heresy as the word is defined by mainline Christians believing in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds (most protestants and all Roman and Orthodox Catholics)...but that doesn't mean they are not nice people. I happen not to care about one's faith or religion(I am somewhat of a universalist) and, as a matter of fact, wouldn't care if Mutt went out naked and worshiped the sun instead of the Son--I don't support him because:
1. Like Bill Clinton, he avoided the draft when his country needed him.
2. Like Bill Clinton, he is unctuous in political practice (i.e. a "progressive" governor of a liberal Northeastern state in much the same way Clinton was "right wing" in a Southern conservative state).
3. Like Bill Clinton, smart and talented but provisionally untrustworthy to keep his word.
4. Like Bill Clinton, has too many "friends" that have gotten into hot water.
5. And the biggest one...too much like Bill Clinton
My copy of the BoM* (1981 edition, © by Intellectual Reserve, Inc.), sitting right here at my side says, on the introduction page, halfway down...
"...the Book of Mormon was the most correct book of any book on earth..."
and 6 pages later, on the 'brief explanation' page, at the bottom:
"Some minor errors in the text have been perpetrated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith."
Now considering how ACCURATE the BoM was supposed to be, just WHY were there so many EARLY editions that contained error??
Especially after JS Himself EDITED them??
Why did it take 151 YEARS until these 'errors' were eliminated??
This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith."
SEEMS to be appropriate? Doesn't the Living Prophet KNOW??
*First English edition published in 1830
There you go again!!
Answering the question that SHOULD have been asked!!
—MormonDude(got ALL the answers!)
Oh??
And just how does one GET this 'eternal life'?
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.