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 ...
We live in the bizzaro world! Where a religious man is the enemy and the gay, lesbian, transgendered, socialist, anti American, liberal tax and spend, income redistributionist, environmental wackos are viewed and held high as the way and the answer. If this continues, stop the world I want to get off!
******BBL8R******
Yeah, Spiff. On team-ups you can claim all you want to the lowly non-Mormons that they're but mere apostates in need of a restoration, whereas here people actually know what lies behind the LDS word "apostasy" when they throw it out...
On team-ups you can cite all you want from the Book of Mormon (BoM)--encouraging folks in homes to read from the BoM--knowing full well that almost NONE of the LDS major doctrines (read: the truly objectionable stuff) come from the Book of Mormon. (See, then you won't have to encounter too many "riled-up" folks who've actually bothered to read what Paul Harvey would call "the rest of the story" [Pearl of Great Price & it's "council of gods" & labeling all non-Mormons as 100% "corrupt" full of creeds abominable to God; and Doctrine & Covenants].
(BTW: Isn't it 100% disengenous for LDS missionaries to ask folks to "pray about the Book of Mormon" when this supposed "fullness of the everlasting gospel" book actually contains almost NONE of the LDS gospel? If 97% of what makes Mormonism truly distinctive isn't found there, and if the BoM already carts away great portions of the Bible wholesale into its pages, isn't that like one of the false advertising "come-ons" we see all the time where the first product doesn't look all that problematic...but, boy, wait til they send you items, 2, 3 & 4 in the mail!)
Since I guess we're suppose to believe the D&C's description of the BoM...(it's supposedly the "fulness of the everlasting gospel") I guess I still wonder...
Where in the BoM is the doctrine or gospel of men becoming gods?
Where in the BoM is the doctrine of the supposed hope that the Mormon god was once a man?
Where in the BoM is the doctrine or gospel of priesthood authority?
Where in the BoM is the doctrine or gospel of 3 degrees or glory, or that you'll get a 2nd chance in spirit prison to accept the gospel post-death? (As a matter of fact, the BoM teaches that NOW is the day of salvation...see 2 Nephi 26:11; Alma 5:28,31,33; 34:31,33,35)
Where in the BoM is the doctrine or gospel that a woman can achieve the highest degree of exaltation (godhood) by marrying a "worthy" Mormon male?
Where in the BoM is the doctrine or gospel of temple works?
Where in the BoM is the doctrine or gospel of temple recommends making one worthy of godhood?
Where in the BoM is the doctrine or gospel of hell=a temporary damnation (as a matter of fact, the BoM teaches that hell is forever...see 1 Nephi 14:3; 15:35; 2 Nephi 28:16,22-23; Jacob 7:18; Alma 26:19-20; Helaman 12:26; 3 Nephi 27:11,17; Ether 14:25).
Where in the BoM is the doctrine or gospel of the pre-existence of man (As a matter of fact, the BoM teaches NO pre-existence of man...see Jacob 4:9; Alma 18:28, 34-36).
Where in the BoM is the doctrine or gospel of marriage is forever, or plural marriage was ever to be embraced as part of the formula for the celestial kingdom? (As a matter of fact, the BoM teaches against polygamy in the Book of Jacob).
Where in the BoM is the doctrine or gospel of adhering to the law brings salvation? (As a matter of fact, the BoM teaches that the Law doesn't save...see 2 Nephi 2:5,7; 25:25,27; Mos. 3:15; 13:27; Alma 34:13-14; Ether 12:11).
And even on the doctrine of "grace," the BoM gives a mixed message. I know on the down side, it teaches that God's grace doesn't kick in til you've done "all you can do," according to 2 Nephi 2:4; 26:25,27; & Ether 12:8,33 works don't save (it's a gift).
No, not really. From the reports I heard, a small percentage stood up and gave him a standing ovation. There was polite applause from the rest. 4,000 people came to hear Harry, 30,000 people attend BYU. Harry crossed the line, bigtime, in his speech. I live in Provo, and I am an alumnus of BYU. The vast majority of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints were appalled at his remarks.
And we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t. The students were polite to Harry Reid and didn’t demonstrate. The Republicans didn’t bus down any protestors from SLC, like the liberals did when Vice President Dick Cheney spoke last May at graduation. At liberal campuses, conservatives cannot speak without interruption or protests or having the invitations yanked. Even though I totally disagree with Harry Reid, BYU has the option to invite whomever they want to to speak at their forums.
Did you hear that Justice John Roberts of the US Supreme Court spoke last week at BYU? He drew about 8,000 listeners. I think that tells you something. BTW, great speech by Roberts.
You mean a whole 4,000 students and faculty from BYU with a full-time student enrollment of almost 30,000 and a faculty of approximately 1,600 actually attended the forum to hear Reid speak? Shocking, I tell you.
And of that whopping 4,000 a whole 1,000 of them gave him a standing ovation. What an indictment of how many students think so highly of Harry Reid I mean, that is like a whole 3 percent of the student body and faculty. Appalling, I tell you.
And since I’m sure you were in attendance, you certainly must know how many of the 1,000 “students” and “faculty” were actually from BYU rather than democratic activists who were asked by the Utah Democratic Party to attend the forum, right?
You really made a strong point with this post. NOT. If you weren’t such an anti-Mormon bigot, you would admit that BYU’s students and faculty are overwhelmingly conservative. But, clowns like you never let facts get in the way of your bigotry.
I believe the acceptable practices for discussion here at FR is to confront the issues....
And refrain from venting your personal attacks upon the holders of differing viewpoints...
Your insults are out of line...
*************
I could not agree more, however, they are in tune with the Bible without interpretation.
The questionable origins of the Mormon doctrines, eternal worldview, and ministry praxis are not aligned with plainly stated Biblical doctrine, nor the historical/grammatical disciplines of Biblical interpretation known collectively as hermeneutics.
The "secret" ceremonies of the "higher priesthood" are almost completely copied from Masonic rituals -- it's not even well-disguised plagiarism -- and it's not really a secret.
The Holy Bible does not teach that Christians ( Mormons?) will someday be raptured to some other planet (Kolob?), And there have the opprtunity to awaken one of their many wives, with whom to be united eternally...
As they then are blessed to serve as "gods" over other planets and populations.
Perhaps you have accepted such doctrines,
I expect we shall agree to disagree...
**************
So, the fact that Mitt is the only front runner still married to his original wife carries Zero weight with you....
I do not believe the original article -- nor my response to Mr Cain's article even mentioned Romney's marriage status... and certainly did NOT draw any comparison to other candidates in this area.
Therefore, how would you PRESUME to know what perceptions of this candidate's married life do and dont carry weight with me??
For the record --
As a "veteran" of 24 years of faithful Christian marriage--
I have great respect for Mr. Romney's successful marriage!
It certainly sets him far above anyone named Clinton!
**************
According to polls, it would make more difference if he parted his hair on the other side, but hey whatever it takes to make you feel relevant.
The only "polls" that are not front-loaded, not media-manipulated, and really count are the ones tallied in the voting booths during the primaries and in the general election next November. That is when people vote their convictions, their conscious, and the Constitution.
**************
I am also a Thompson supporter...
If Mitt becomes the Republican nominee...
I will support him and vote likewise....
************
But hey whatever it takes to make you feel relevant.
Let's see.... Hmmmm......
I have an opinion...
I am a member of the forum, as you are.
That makes my point-of-view at least as "revelant" as ....say your own?!!!
If you don't like 'em....
Don't read 'em!!!
I strongly recommend you undertake to learn the basic etiquette of Free Republic.
Have a nice day...
Brigham Young wrote "Old Pharaoh, king of Egypt, was just as much a son of God as Moses and Aaron were his sons." This is the Mormon teaching that all men are sons of God. Romans 9:8 says something quite different: "They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."
It's odd that the Mormon church is trying to blend in with the "other" Christian denominations. Smith wrote that he asked the Lord which of all the sects were right. He was told they were all wrong "and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight; those professors were all corrupt; ... He again forbade me to join with any of them;"
The Book of Mormon fails all archaeological and linguistic analysis. The translations don't even begin to hold up to scrutiny, and the historical references in the book are far from what the historical evidence shows. The Bible, on the other hand, is continually attacked for historical inaccuracies, only to be proven true as archaelogical evidence is unearthed.
The Smithsonian Institution wrote in 1959, "There is no correspondence whatever between archaelogical sites and cultures as revealed by scientific investigations, and as recorded in the Book of Mormon. Interpretations of archeological and ethnographic data, moreover, are quite unlike the American prehistory which the Book of Mormon describes ... It can be stated definitely that there is no connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the Book of Mormon."
Dr. Martin's 51 page treatise on the Mormon church ends with
"From these facts it is evident for all to see that Mormonism strives with great effort to masquerade as the Christian Church, complete with an exclusive message, infallible prophets, higher revelations for new dispensation which the Mormons would have us believe began with Joseph Smith, Jr.
But it is the verdict of both history and Biblical theology that Joseph Smiths's religion is a polytheistic nightmare of garbled doctrines draped with the garment of Christian terminology. This fact, if nothing else, brands it as a non-Christian cult system".
OK. So now I'm the president-elect & I'm supposed to answer loaded questions like, "When do you beat your Mormon wife?" (or similar "nice assumption" types of question)
(Yeah. You got me. I've been a constitution-abuser from way back. I was on the wagon for a while; but my church stopped offering its UU mtgs [Upheaval Unanimous] for us prone to decompose the constitution...
(I mean, I keep praying to a higher godhead power--you know, higher than our godhead...but every time I send an e-mail addressed to the "Highest Power of the Universe" I keep getting responses from various members of the "council of gods" saying "We have forwarded your request to our great grandfathers-godhead, who in turn passed it on to their great grandfathers-godhead." I finally got one divine council member who implied that there really was no original god or godhead, and that therefore my request will fall under their common "Catch-22" response--I can't get a response addressed to the "Highest Power of the Universe" unless I find him; But I can't find him because none of the gods know of him...alas, I can't find a single one who's not been "created.")
I know that many people feel that Mormons are just "Christians who wear magical underwear." I don't know enough about their positions to arrive at an opinion yet.
I don't know about Colofornian's adherence to the Constitution if he were elected President. However, I’m certain that if Romney were to be elected President, Colofornian would follow Paul’s counsel in 1 Timothy 2:1-3 which states:
1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour
I would actually enjoy knowing that Colofornian, the anti-Mormon, anti-Romney basher, would be praying for the success of Romney—because that would be “good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour.”
Why don’t you give it up so we can go on to other topics?
“Now, change one little word in your question as applied to U.S. Presidents (at least some of them) & you might get a different response: “Can you point us to any elements of Christian theology in which these presents attempted to expose on U.S. citizens while in office?” The answer to this question is “yes.” Yes, Teddy Roosevelt “exposed” his Christian faith and beliefs while in office (as has others). “
What is wrong about being exposed to an idea or belief system? What justifies censoring what religions a person is exposed to? What it sounds like here is an attempt to prevent people from finding out about Mormonism from Mormons.
“Example 1: The Book of Mormon was anti-polygamy; but then its original prophet WAS a polygamist”
The BoM indicates there are time where polygamy is allowed by God and time where he forbids it. Our practice has been consistent with that.
“Example 2: LDS said black skin was a “curse” and prevented blacks from the priesthood. Then they changed their mind in 1978.”
There was a time when only Levities could hold the Priesthood and only Israelites could become Christians. That was changed by revelation to Peter. Brigham Young said a day would come when blacks would be allowed by God to hold the priesthood too and the revelation to allow that came in 1978. Several times before then the leaders of the Church sought to know from God if the time had come and were told no. No reason for the ban was never revealed and the speculations of individuals are not doctrine of the church.
“Example 3: LDS were largely anti-slavery in history. But then you get curious pro-slave owner “Scriptural” passages like Doctrine & Covenants 134:12.”
The verse in no way endorses slavery, it only outlines how missionaries in areas where slavery is legal should work within the law. They should not attempt to provoke a rebellion or endanger the life of a slave by going behind the back of the owner. In the NT a Christian, Paul sent a runaway slave Onesimus back to his master, Philemon.
“Example 4: Except for the doctrine of grace and some others, just about all of the major distinctions between LDS & the historic Christian faith doesn’t even come from the Book of Mormon. What that means is that LDS theology itself “evolved””
The purpose of the BoM was to restore the fullness of the gospel. The gospel is faith, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost and enduring to the end. The BoM adds significant clarity to what people have argued over in the Bible for ages on those topics.
The gospel is a part of the plan of salvation. Our understanding of the plan of salvation did grow over time as more and more information was revealed and added to what we already had, but the implication that what was already known changed over time is false in spite of several dishonest attempts to make it look so by taking bits of things out of context.
“Example 5: LDS position on abortion. If you read the LDS position on abortion (particularly the one I’ve seen written for LDS bishops), it initially comes across as “pro-life.” But as you read it carefully, you realize that the holes in this cheese”
The church will not take action against a member who gets an abortion because of rape, incest, or if the pregnancy is judged by the appropriate medical authorities as endangering the life of the mother. The church is also very clear that just because those conditions exist doesn’t automatically mean an abortion is justified or acceptable to God. We believe in personal revelation, and a mother-to-be in that situation has a duty to take the matter up with God personally. She will also answer to God personally for what she does.
There is a lot of garbage out there being posted by people whose motives are not related to being truthful and accurate about Mitt or about Mormons.
"Because you might learn something!"
You mean a whole 4,000 students and faculty from BYU with a full-time student enrollment of almost 30,000 and a faculty of approximately 1,600 actually attended the forum to hear Reid speak? Shocking, I tell you.
Well, again, maybe you should have waited & read UtahGirl's response first. Because even for a conservative like Justice Roberts, he drew only twice as many as Reid from your "cavernous" student & faculty population. (Here BYU had 5-digit enrollment numbers X3 and yet couldn't even crack 5-digits).
If you weren’t such an anti-Mormon bigot, you would admit that BYU’s students and faculty are overwhelmingly conservative. But, clowns like you never let facts get in the way of your bigotry.
Hey, you need to work on your repetition more (I only counted two "bigot"/"bigotry" remarks at the peak of your comments; and we all know if you really want to properly putdown a "clown" you need to hurl more invectives like that...I mean, look, you failed to even use the word "bigoted.")
[Oh, and BTW, since "bigot" is of French origin, it's worth noting two things...
(1) It was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood, with the meaning of attaching "excessive devotion" to this sisterhood...(yeah, the devoted do get slapped around a bit)
(2) As one FREEPER explained to me, his understanding was that French women would use it to define who was hypocritical and who wasn't (thereby attempting to frame who was a proper church member & who wasn't). Hmm...Now where have I heard someone who tried to do just that? Oh yeah:
"My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right — and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were all corrupt..." (Joseph Smith - History, vv. 18-19, Pearl of Great Price)
But he DOES do his literary homework quite thoroughly....
In the mid-1980's he published a work called The God Makers, co-written with a former highest ranking "priesthood" member of the Mormon faith.
The historical/doctrinal expose' was eye-opening enough....
But the effects and implied stress of this works-based religious system were well documented - and cause for empathy, compassion and prayers.
It's an interesting read...
Just FYI....
Well, sometimes ya gotta be "against" the person to be for them...(Example: Some teens need "tough love" 'cause you don't want them to continue down a dark path). So if you like to go around and keep painting FREEPERtown with your graffiti labels (this time with all your "anti" rants), go right ahead.
As for praying for Romney, of course! (I just asked God for forgiveness for NOT recently praying for him; prayed for Mitt Romney), so I thank you for the reminder.
Ya wanna explain why you keep addressing N.S. (posts #243, #273) but you're responding to my words?
(Does this mean you're not talking to me anymore; but you still wanted to indirectly respond? :) )
I do have a problem with people not voting for Mitt because he is a Mormon, it is wrong to be so judgemental.
Well, not only am I aware of that, but this is a very interesting turn-around from what normally occurs when I talk to Mormons. You are indeed a rare Mormon who properly understands this. But you can't blame these other Mormons for their confusion.
If I took the time, I could come up with dozens & dozens examples of where LDS prophets & general authorities basically define the gospel beyond how you have properly defined it. (They add it all kinds of "precepts" to be part of it).
You see, they tend to start with Book of Mormon passages like 1 Nephi 13: 29, 36...29 And after these plain and precious things were ataken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.
So, they conclude that the historic Christian church "took many plain & precious things...out of the gospel."
So the question is, if you & I agree that...
The word “gospel” means “the good news.” It is the news that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God, the Saviour of the world. He died for our sins. He was resurrected and through him we too will live again. That is the good news.
...AND if the historic Christian church still teaches this (and they do)...THEN what "plain and precious" things have been removed from the gospel?
I mentioned I could show dozens & dozens of expanded LDS definitions of the "gospel." Allow me to show you two:
Here's a direct quote from www.lds-palm.com/pocket-library.html: The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the Bible stands among the greatest revelations given by the Lord to restore plain and precious gospel truths...
Now since the Christian church still teaches your definition of "gospel," what "plain and precious gospel truths" needed to be restored in the JST by Joseph Smith?
Example 2, from the 177th General Conference on April 1, 2007, by Elder L. Tom Perry: : Our message is unique. The Fullness of the Gospel has been restored to the earth. The saving ordinances can now be performed with binding authority by those who exercise the priesthood. This is the day referred to by Biblical prophets as the “latter-day.” We invite all to hear the Restored Gospel. Determine from yourselves which is from God.
OK, if your definition of "gospel" is not unique from mine, why does Perry say "Our message is unique?" Why does he say "The Fullness of the Gospel has been restored to the earth" unless he is claiming the historic Christian church botched it & lost it? And what is "it?" Well, according to Perry "it" includes the "saving ordinances" performed by priesthood authority.
Hmm. That's funny. Those "saving ordinances" isn't in the BoM; (and neither is that "priesthood authority"). So much for the restored "gospel fulness" being in the BoM.
(You know, it would be a real good word study for you to come up with a VERY long list of what LDS general authorities have included under that umbrella of either (a) what's included under those "gospel truths" or (b) what's part of the "plain & precious things...taken away out of the gospel." But you know what? I think you already know that...and so do LDS posters here. You simply posted a Biblical definition of the "gospel," thinking it would be the magic "disarm" tactic...but in the process, you have deliberted distorted how LDS have added on to that definition in leaps & bounds...time to come clean)
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.