Friday, February 09, 2007
|
|
A Rare Romney Post!
|
|
Posted by:
Dean Barnett at
6:23 PM
|
|
My blog buddy Instapunk took a few shots at me, Hugh and Mitt Romney this morning.
Taking them in order of importance, his attack on Romney is weak and I’d say offensive stuff. It’s the kind of attack that’s likely to make people more likely to support Romney rather than less likely. In response to my mini-post yesterday on Romney’s fund-raising success, Instapunk wrote:
Mormonism is the most absurd form of Christianity by, say, a million parsecs, and I, personally, am getting tired of American conservatives who believe the American people can be sold a bill of goods on the say-so of well connected (Look at me being influential!) bloggers.
I'll say what no one else will at this point: Mormons are untrustable idiots…Mitt Romney will never be president. He's a Mormon. Therefore he's a loon, regardless of how blazingly intelligent you have to be to make a half billion dollars in this country. The American people aren't going to buy this particular pig in this particular poke.
The only explanation I can think of for this bizarre and off-putting rant from the normally appealing Instapunk is that he's auditioning for a role with the Edwards’ campaign. Regardless, this kind of invective reliably has the opposite of the effect intended. With enemies like Instapunk, Romney hardly needs friends.
As pertains to Instapunk’s personal shots at me and Hugh, I’ll let Hugh defend himself if he’s so inclined although I bet he’ll consider the whole posting not worthy of a response. As Instapunk’s remarks pertain to me, here they are, mercifully condensed for your convenience:
Barnett is an intelligent, well-meaning man. So is Hugh Hewitt. But they've both been bitten by the power bug. They think they can play a role in who gets elected President of the United States in 2008. In their infinite wisdom, they've decided that should be Mitt Romney and that we will be taken in by their assurances based on the respect they earned for honesty before they became campaign functionaries. The sad fact is, we can't trust them anymore.
This is a borderline serious argument, so I’ll give it a borderline serious response even though I was planning on taking the day off from blogging.
Bloggers who lack a fundraising mechanism like many on the left have are only as powerful as their latest arguments. If I stopped blogging today, I highly doubt I’d get a single letter begging me to guide the writer on how to vote in the ’08 election. The only power I have is that people read my stuff. If said stuff is weak, it will be instantly forgotten. If it’s strong, it may have a longer shelf life. While I’m often prone to ego trips, I don’t do power trips, at least insofar as my blogging is concerned.
Regarding Mitt Romney, I’ve been convinced since I got to know him in 1994 that he would be an amazing president. Now that he’s seeking the office, I’m a staunch supporter. And I mean “staunch” as the word is typically understood, not how Chris Bowers uses it. I think I’ve been pretty explicit regarding my feelings on this matter. I’ll support whoever the Republican nominee is, but I would greatly prefer that it’s Romney.
I probably get 20 letters a day asking me, “What should I think about Romney doing thus and so…?” I always respond to these letters basically the same way: You’ll get to know him over the next year. You’ll have ample time to make up your own mind. That’s why I don’t spend every day talking about Mitt. I've spent a lot more time and blog-space talking about John Edwards and Barack Obama over the last few weeks than I did about Mitt Romney. It’s his campaign – he’ll have to win the votes.
For those of you who think my embrace of Romney labels me as a moron whose stuff is no longer worth reading, sorry. You’ll live without me – I guarantee it. As a consolation, I can tell you that are roughly 6 million other blogs out there. Chances are one of the other 5,999,999 will fill the gap.
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.
|
|
|
Fear. Everyone who blogs and comments is either trying to influence others by persuasion or, unfortunately by attempted intimidation via name-calling or insult. Why else would anyone blog? Apparently, Instapunk is afraid of youse guys because you are having some impact on getting the Romney message out. Matched against two highly flawed opponents, arguing in favor of McCain or Guiliani by issue is futile. Giuliani is a Republican Hillary and McCain is a party unto himself. Romney stands alone on ethics and character so the only path left is to damn him for being a Mormon. You and Hugh are sure getting called alot of ugly names lately. Let me be the first to ring the danglers: you are Mormons aren't you - admit it. Is that hate speech? |
|
...the non-resolution in the Senate.
In my opinion.
Look, Dean is in the Romney camp because of his first hand experience with the man and the respect he's developed for him.
As far as Hugh goes, he hasn't really opined too much on Romney. Let's read his book! Let's not imagine what Hugh thinks of Romney, read the book and then know. |
|
Yes! But that worked because the ideas were good and powerful. No one said, "Hugh and Dean are getting a petition together? I don't even need to read it. Where do I sign?!"
51 days to Opening Day Reynolds. |
|
|
I find it hilarious, and not at all surprising, that almost all the public attacks on Romney being a Mormon originate from the left wing. Sounds like fear to me. |
|
If Mitt Romney were Mormon specifically because he declared himself convinced that the weight of the rational evidence supported Mormonism's fantastic historical claims, Punk might have a point: The reasoning ability of such a person could fairly be called into question. But the number of people who join religions because they're rationally convinced by historical evidence can be counted on the Lakers' fingers, and Mitt Romney gives no indication of being such a person. He strikes me as being a Marriott Mormon -- one of the tribe who doesn't give the historical stuff much thought. The Church is a congenial place full of (mostly) really good, and really happy, people, practicing an innocuous practical religion that, to a non-Christian, would seem barely distinguishable from other Christian flavors.
(I'll grant that this is at least in part because for the last couple of decades, the leadership has been actively trying to play down or abandon the more exotic nineteenth-century stuff.) |
|
|
I just read Instapunk's original post, and Dean doesn't even get into half the offensive BS this guy says. Don't go look if you're a sensitive Catholic or your beliefs are even borderline Calvinist. It's really the sort of rambling that parodies itself. I had the same thought as Mr. Barrett: he's apparently auditioning for a spot in the Edwards campaign. |
|
Truly pathetic expression provided by this blogger.
Not worthy of much other discourse...
Tired, weak, lame, etc... |
|
|
|
There is no way for me to say anything about Mitt's religion that will not sound prejudicial. I assume (with little evidence supporting it) that the vast majority of Moslems/Mormons in this country are Americans and honor, respect and would fight for our way of life.
That said, their belief systems are NOT compatible with the freedoms I depend on and have a right to. I would never expect to see a Mormon terrorist but would expect Mormons to propose and support legislation that limits my ability to raise my daughter (I am the non-legal parent in a lesbian relationship raising an adopted child).
I think the flap over the Edwards' bloggers and Instapunk's issues with Dean and Hugh are stupid. I WANT every voice to be out there, one of the reasons there are 6 million blogs and rising. When someone is on a street corner proclaiming the end of the world, they are not likely to be secretly working to make it happen. |
|
You're really InstaPunk in drag, aren't you?
Otherwise, I suggest you re-read Acts 5:25 ff and consider the advice of Gamaliel. And you might want to check out Matthew 7 again, as well.
Anyone who claims to be Christian should fear being one of those who says at the final judgment, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' And then be told, 'I never knew you.'
Maybe we ought to leave it to Christ to decide who can be Christians. |
|
Instapunk used a sledge hammer to get his point across.
Bottom line is this. Conservative evangelicals are not going to get on the Mormon band wagon. The GOP, Dean and Hugh just need to face those facts. It is not even close to being compared to JFK. From http://www.josephsmith.net - The Lord Jesus Christ called Joseph Smith as a prophet to prepare the way for His coming in glory. Joseph Smith's life is a testimony to the reality of that calling.
Go try and sell that to the Evangelicals who the GOP needs in order to win. You can't sell it no matter what the price. Start to just face the facts. |
|
|
Wow, almost 2 years to election day and already its a free-for-all. Man I just love politics, Hugh and Dean keep pouring the coals to GOP infighting, can anyone say "self-destruction." |
|
entails being a virtuous, enlightened, successful and talented family man like Mitt ... Lydia gets thrown overboard. I'm sick of ignorant Dominionist religious bigots - or their leftist internet embedded moles on places like FR and TownHall ... co-opting Conservatism to our political demise.
Drink a shot of Jagger Lydia and STFU. Thanks in advance. |
|
Is there some "troglodyte" disease going around? Is there a way I can inoculate myself? Because this is starting to get scary. First Edwards' staff, then Instapunk, now Lydia.
Yes, Romney is a Mormon. Yes, I am an evangelical Christian who thinks Mormonism is a heresy and that the Book of Mormon is a *false* testament of my Lord and Saviour. Suffice it to say I would not want Romney to have any leadership position at my church. But he's not running for a pastorship. He's running for President of the United States, a secular position. His false religious beliefs don't disqualify him.
It remains to be seen if I'm voting for Mitt Romney. I'm sure not going to decide that twenty-one freakin' months in advance. But I'm not going to pick against him just because he's a Mormon. |
|
|
If you were a leftist subversive troll, you'd invent Lydia to make conservatives look like crazy bigots. The internet is wonderful AND insidious. |
|
To all here taking swats at Lydia let me clue you in. She's right and so is Instapunk. The people that are in denial are Barnett, Hewett, Chavez, the Heritage Foundation, Townhall.com and all the posters that think Romney can win. They only think he can win because they want him to win. They don't listen to any arguments otherwise, they don't learn about Mormonism and they sure as hell didn't learn anything after the GOP got their a** handed to them last November.
Do you people want the GOP to hold on to the Presidency or just hand it over to the Democrats because you don't want to be labeled a bigot?
|
|
The annoying thing, for Mormons like myself who sometimes rather enjoy (occasionally well-meant) sniping at our lines, is that these days there aren't any challenges made on doctrinal or historical grounds that haven't already been answered, in many cases over and over and over again. It's all out there for those who who'd actually like to take the time to look.
http://wayoffbass.blogspot.com/2005/06/responding-to-critics-your-almost.htmlHere's a round-up of links for your perusing pleasure.
See particularly the links about Craig Blomberg's and Stephen Robinson's co-authored book "How Wide the Divide," a serious attempt by an evangelical and a Mormon, both scholars, to engage in a discussion without the usual fireworks. It's an important book.
More recently, JohnS of Article" target="_blank">http://www.article6blog.com/">Article VI Blog presents some words from Richard J Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary, which, as JOhnS puts it, "is the best expression I have encountered of what creedal Christian attitude towards Mormonism should be. Such an attitude would naturally leave the door wide open, perhaps even non-existent, for creedal and Mormon Christian political cooperation and alliance."
http://www.article6blog.com/2007/02/06/bridging-the-gulf/ Give it a look-see, won't you? But don't forget Lowell's important post-script at the end.
Even a pessimist like me is starting to soften on the idea that Romney may have a real chance among evangelicals.
|
|
|
|
First, thanks for the link. I hadn't read Instapunk before. He's very funny, a very good writer.
Second, loosen up. The statement: "Mitt Romney will never be president. He's a Mormon. Therefore he's a loon," is funny, and it's possibly true. Compare it to this statement: "Mitt Romney will never be president. He's a Muslim. Therefore he's a jihadist." Would that statement be dismissed as unfair? Would that be considered the statement of a bigot? Would you say: "A man's religion simply doesn't matter for the President of the United States?" I say it does matter. In this next election we're not electing a President we're electing a Commander in Chief, and we're fighting a long war against a religiously motivated enemy. Never has a President's religious convictions and insights ever been more important. I'm sick of hearing about "the religion of peace."
Third point: Whether you agree with the above or not in fact a lot of people do. It's something you're going to have to discuss. If you dismiss such people as bigots you'll simply lose influence. For myself I want to know what the man believes, I want to know what views he has in terms of facing an enemy of another faith. I don't want a European who thinks the jihadis might have a point. I don't want somebody who's going to get us killed. |
|
First I read that Evangelical Christians would not, Oh Horrors! Could never, accept A Mormon as President. Then I read that The women in the Lesbian relationship thinks Mitt and the Mormons would take away her "rights". I read that Mormons must really be Moslems in disguise who would lead us into war and get us all killed.
To say that as a Mormon I am Offended would be true. To say that I am surprised would not be.
When I speak of someone else's religion I talk to them personally to make sure I am getting the facts right. Have any of you so called experts actually read the Book of Mormon from cover to cover? I have read the Bible from cover to cover and cherish it as the word of God.
Shame on bigots of any stripe!
|
|
Religion or the lack of matters to the extent that the candidate can't step out in front and be seen as his own man, or her own woman. Some religions, and for that matter philosophies, are more difficult to supercede than others--some perhaps even impossible.
In any case, if the candidate does not establish individual character than the candidate will lose, certainly; they will appear too small, or they will seem merely to confirm a stereotype, or worse, a hypocrite.
We have plenty of time to see where the chips are going to fall, and we count on some doozie trips before all is said and done. |
|
Sounds like Dean is trying to use reverse psychology on Instapunk. Pretty childish.
And what's with this garbage with Dean being the arbiter of what's "offensive?" He sounds like a Liberal, trying to silence thought via Political Correctness. Guess that's what happens when you stay too long in Massachusetts. Can you say "RINO?"
If no one has anything to fear about Mitt Romney's Mormonism, then Dean and Hugh should talk it up. As should you Mormons. The more talk about Mormonism the better, right?
So check this out and forward it to all your friends and to all the blogs. It's one of those fearful sites, full of insult and bigotry, sure to win the election for Mitt. (BTW, it's not only those on the Left who are "picking" on poor Mormons. The blog is written by a Conservative.)
Check out
http://romneyforpresident.townhall.com/
Like Mormonism, the blog isn't what it seems. |
|
"Moreover, Mormons teach that Christ is a secondary, inferior god. He does not exist from all eternity. (Nor, for that matter, does his Father.) He was first made by a union of his heavenly parents. After having been reared and taught in the heavens, he achieved a certain divine stature. Through carnal relations with her Heavenly Father, the Virgin became pregnant with this lesser god.
Mormons now believe that Christ’s divinity is virtually equal to that of his Father’s. As we have seen, this is a compromised godhood: Jesus Christ merely joins the end of a long line of gods who have preceded him, an infinite "regression" of divine beings whose origin Mormons cannot explain. (Nor, for that matter, can they explain its end, as we will see when we discuss the doctrine of men becoming gods." Thanks catholic answers. The religion is unusual to say the least. |
|
"The annoying thing, for Mormons like myself who sometimes rather enjoy (occasionally well-meant) sniping at our lines, is that these days there aren't any challenges made on doctrinal or historical grounds that haven't already been answered, in many cases over and over and over again. It's all out there for those who who'd actually like to take the time to look."
This is why Romney can't win. When asked about the validity of the Book of Mormom they just rehash the same nonsense. They refuse to acknowledge that there isn't any, none, not one iota of historical evidence to support it. Are these the qualities you want in your President? |
|
" Conservative evangelicals are not going to get on the Mormon band wagon. "
Luckily they don't have too. I have a source inside the Romney campaign who tells me that Mr. Romney is willing to accept votes from non-Mormons. Its crazy, but it just might work.
|
|
I'm speaking for myself now and I don't want to make this a religious discussion but...
1) I could go into the evidence that actually does exist:
here: http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai024.html
here: http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Archeology_and_the_Bible
here: http://farms.byu.edu/publications/bookofmormonview.php?subcat=100&cat=1
(note the vast majority of these articles are by people who have serious academic credentials)
2) I could quote evangelical scholars such as
Carl Mosser: "Mormonism’s challenges are real and can be dismissed only at a cost evangelicals are unwilling to pay"
OR Richard Mouw: "Evangelicals [should] treat Mormonism differently than the other groups that we have typically - and misleadingly - lumped together as 'the cults'"
Or Paul Owen: "Mormonism, has, in recent years, produced a substantial body of literature defending their beliefs... In this battle the Mormons are fighting valiantly. And the evangelicals? It appears that we may be losing the battle and not knowing it."
OR Francis Beckwith: "... there should be room to admin that some Latter-day Saints are intelligent, knowledgeable, and sincere, and yet feel that there are good reasons for believing that Mormonism is true even if they recognize that there are some problematic areas"
Or
3) I could simply say. Take some time to talk to a Mormon and ask them what they really believe. |
|
I know next to nothing about LDS, but might vote for Romney if he sticks to his no amnesty stand. You said in a previous post:
Do you people want the GOP to hold on to the Presidency or just hand it over to the Democrats because you don't want to be labeled a bigot?
Many in the GOP want us to hand over our country to illegal aliens because they don't want to be labeled as bigots. I am one conservative that will not vote for a GOP candidate just to win if the candidate is in favor of amnesty and open borders. Mormonism or any other religious affiliation is so secondary compared to protecting and defending our country as REQUIRED by the oath of office, which the current occupant has ignored. I voted for W. twice, but would not have if I had known he would sell us out on the border, North American Union, Totalization Treaty with Mexico, etc.
|
|
I am LDS so I notice. I have seen some pretty ugly stuff at sites like Politpundit from the right commenters more than the left.
Whatever bigotry there is against my faith is shared on both sides.
Here is a fact for those that think that we all lockstep as members of the church. If that were true Romney never would have been "pro-choice" and Reid would not be the flaming liar he is. And I would not be starting my serious research on who I would vote for. Romney being LDS like me is not enough. I have to know what he will do for the country I love. |
|
|
He IS right in his bashing of the ever hapless Red Sox and their masochistic fansbase. |
|
I would love to have MQ enlighten me on the logical consistency of Ex Nihilo Creation. Perhaps he could explain how a God who creates
everything from nothing is not responsible for evil. This provides one of the great paradoxes that orthodox Christianity has struggled with for milennia. Atheists have a field day with this paradox, as in: "If there is a God how can he allow suffering in the world?" (especially if he created the evil that causes the suffering). Mormon belief in the eternal existence of all matter, and that God organized the creation out of pre-existing matter solves this paradox and explains the premium placed on the agency of man.
MQ mis-stated and distorted a number of Mormon doctrines. For Example,there is no statement by any Leader of the LDS faith that specifies the mechanics by which the Savior was conceived.
A careful reading of the account of the Angel speaking to Mary in the book of Luke would tend to confirm the LDS understanding of Jesus' conception.
1. The Holy Ghost shall came upon thee
(to prepare Mary to abide the presence of
Deity)
2. And the power of the Highest shall overshadow
thee,
(i.e. God the Father is the Father of Jesus)
3. Therefore also that Holy Thing that shall be
born of thee shall be called the Son of God,
(Jesus is the Son of the Father)
What is unnatural or unbiblical about God being the Father of Jesus and Mary being his mother?
It is sacred and beautiful and I worship God the Father, in the name of his Son Jesus, by the power of the Holt Ghost.
|
|
As a casual participant in the world of blogging, I am often amazed at the kind of remarks uttered by some who profess to being Christians. I find it quite disturbing that many who proclaim their Christianity are oftentimes beguiled by Lucifer into believing they have the justifiable authority to pronounce heresy upon anyone who does not view their form of so-called Christianity in like manner. They vainly, and arrogantly believe Christ has called them to the forefront of His Church to judge others. It is shameful that they are so small minded as to believe that the Lord should need them to do that which He has proclaimed only He has the power to accomplish. Perhaps they will at some point come to realize just how puny, and insignificant they actually are.
There is not much one can say to a person who possesses very little in the way of actual knowledge concerning the beliefs of others. They are convinced they are right, and there is nothing anyone can say to them to change their opinion. The world is filled to overflowing with pathetic souls who have been duped into believing the Lord has given them some enlightened view of the world which others are not worthy to receive. They make Satan quite pleased when they go about pointing their judgemental fingers at others. He knows they are his to lead around at will because pride always precedes the fall, and these poor fools are more than willing to give him their allegiance by doing things opposite to that which Christ has taught.
As a Christian myself, I am grateful to our Heavenly Father that I have an understanding of the nature of His Son Jesus Christ that shows me that I should pray for those of His sons, and daughters who have not searched the scriptures sufficiently to know the truth of things about which they have little understanding. I am also thankful to know that I am an unworthy enough servant already without attempting to judge others, and offend my Lord, Jesus Christ by trying to usurp His power.
|
|
The election is FAR away and yet I already tire of these sad attacks on my faith. Now I read that we are comparalbe to Muslims and jihadists.
I don't believe the things I believe because they are rational...it is called faith.
Anyone who believes in the Resurrection of the Savior knows what I mean. There is no absolute historical evidence that says that He did. Yet most of this nation believes, in some form or another that he did.
Remember doubting Thomas? He had to see with his own eyes. Mormons, like everyone else, say that when it comes to their doctrine and beliefs, seeing isn't necessary.
Besides, what has Romney done as Governor that would lead anyone to suspect he would mingle his religion with politics as President? Would he propose a "Read the Book of Mormon" law?????
And once and for all, Mormons don't believe that God slept with Mary the Virgin...or that Christ is some "lesser God". How foolish are you?? |
|
Lydia,
I realize you dislike the Mormon religion, but please keep in mind, we're electing a Commander-in-Chief, not a Theologian-in-Chief.
You're making the intellectual mistake of conflating theological beliefs with political beliefs.
Mormons may have different theological beliefs than Christians, but generally speaking, they share the same political beliefs as you.
To support that point, Utah votes MORE consistently Republican than do most of the "red states" which have an electorate which is much more "Christian" than Utah.
If Mitt Romney is tough on terrorism, governs as a fiscal conservative, and vows to deliver justices in the mold of Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Scalia---all to your liking---what difference does it make which church services he attends on Sunday ?
John Edwards is a "Christian"---but I know you don't plan to vote for him.
And assuming you were a Minnesota resident back in 2002, I bet you voted for Norm Coleman for Senate over Walter Mondale.
Thus, it proves that in other instances, you have been able to bring yourself to focus on a candidate's political beliefs, rather than his theological beliefs. |
|
I wish you, lydia and other like you, could just listen for a change. We are not to be feared. The most dangerous thing that comes out of Utah is alot of green jello.
To see what I am talking about, watch how the church itself will treat Romney's campaign and if elected, his presidency. They won't publically or privatly support him, they won't ask the members to vote for him. The leadership of the church will have no more influence than the token visit to the white house to talk politley in front of the cameras...same as with the last few presidents.
There are I believe some 6 LDS senators, not a few representatives, and dozens of other lds government officials. Have one of them behaved at all in a way that realize any of your fears?
The church will not allow the use of their buildings, resources or money for the Romney Campaign. Please understand that mormons aren't some kind of enemy and our beliefs, when not out of context aren't all that strange.
You don't have to vote for Mitt, but make sure that you come up with a better reason that his religion. Because that argument holds no water. |
|
Romney has said that he is "opposed to amnesty", but he is in favor of a "path to citizenship". "those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship, as they would from their home country.'" May 26, 2006; Lowell Sun
Ah yes, the famous "path to citizenship", but not amnesty. Its a kiss of death to any GOP presidential candidate who stands by that position. Mitt needs to make sure he has all the new buzz words down. Its now called regularization. I've learned that from Hugh.
|
|
|
All the non-Mormons that are so quick to discard Romneys beliefs as a non-issue just boggles my mind. Don't bother to do a little investigating on it, just ignore the fact the guy believes in things dreamt up by a 19 century con man. It isn't about Mormons having a "few" beliefs "that don't bare scientific scrutiny" it's the fact that none of it does, Mormonism has been proven false over and over again yet Mormons cover their ears and chant "I can't hear you". But you're willing to give Romney a pass at that because he seems like a nice guy, has good hair and he sure is a good fundraiser. Is this how you make all your decisions? |
|
As I said before...am I really going to have to put up with this until next november??
Mormomism hasn't been "proven" false. Science and historians understanding of the past is being constantly refined. There is quite a bit of scholarly research to back up the Church's claim.
If we lived in a country where being Christian was a little less popular, we would be exposed to all the "proof" of how the Bible stories are false and have been proven to be so.
Many of the same attacks "Christians" use against Mormons; skeptics and atheists use against Christians.
The LDS church is still relatively new and different. Our doctrine has not been around so long as to become an assumption. I could bring up all sorts of points to "disprove" other Christian denominations, but I won't stoop to that level today.
I believe me religion is true, yet I have voted for evangelicals, batpists, catholics, jews, etc despite the fact that I believe they do not have all the Truth they could have.
It's called working together. |
|
Thank you for showing me that intellectual relevance is utterly lost on those whose self-important view of themselves is perfectly in line with idiosyncratic self observations. Fortunately we all do not find it necessary to hurl epithets at the looking glass to recognize our own deplorable deficiencies. Eventually we will all come to that point in life where we are able to see clearly that we are alone even when in a crowd due to the unimaginable deficiencies we have heaped upon ourselves through ignorance.
Many of the ignorant are resolutely moving toward self-destruction even though they mistakenly feel they are held firmly in the hand of divine attribution. They are simply unable to understand that what they have to say is only recognized by those who resemble them spiritually. They also seem to be unenlightened concerning their own irrelevance when their words fall upon deaf ears. Only those who have lost their way know exactly when others are able to see through their ineptness, and spiritual deceptions. It is too bad that they, in the end, will fall victim to the same irrelevance they are striving so hard to see in others.
|
|
|
Or is it just one-time, for Romney only. No one cared when his father ran for president forty years ago so why is it suddenly important? Herbert Hoover, a practicing Quaker, didn't take his oath on a bible. Even if Joseph Smith really was a 19th century charlatan, and I don't know that and don't care, Jews don't accept Jesus as the Savior either! Maybe us Christians have it wrong! I was born a Catholic and had I been born a Jew, or Mormon or Southern Baptist, that is probably what I would be today. These attacks on Romney's Mormonism are about bigotry - pure and simple. We are heading back into the dark ages and it is not just liberals and Islamofascists. It's a plague and seems to be highly contagious. |
|
|
|
|
Oh, well. That's disappointing news. Mitt was the one hope of the top three. It seems like the GOP is committed to political suicide. GOP-RIP |
|
|
It's about conservatives, not Republicans or Democrats and we are winning. If you think that way, the path to victory becomes visible. We are being trashed because we refuse to go quietly. Even if we get a dopey president, it's what happens in Congress that is more important. Reagan succeeded with fewer Republicans in office than there are now. If fact, the current minority party has shown more backbone and effectiveness than the majority version it replaced. Conservatives can and do bring the pain. Just keep it coming. |
|
|
I have no intention of going quietly. Nor will name calling or denigrating or trying to scare me with Hillary, Obama, etc. get me to vote for McCain, Guliani, or it seems Romney. I do hope Republican voters deliver some surprises in the primaries. The money players and party operatives are all on board with selling out America, but many of their voters are not. If not, a third party candidate this time around just might have a chance. Plenty of Democrats aren't happy with their party's eagerness to accomodate the demands of the illegal aliens. |
|
Must be nice to be you. All open minded, not a bigoted bone in your body. Religion has no place for you in politics, hell just to show how enlightened you are I'm sure you would have no problem endorsing a good conservative Muslim.
Spare me, I don't give a sh*t if Romney worships squirrels and believes in his next life he too will be a squirrel. But to think we shouldn't question a squirrel worshipers belief system if he wants to run for President is just ridiculous.
And yes perronepower you are going to have to put up with it, because as much as you insist there is evidence to confirm anything in the BoM the bottom line is, it just ain't so.
|
|
We live in a supposedly tolerant society. Tolerance means that we all have to accept things we don't like or approve of. So long as whatever that is doesn't impede our pursuit of our own happiness, it is none of our business. We can only judge others by measuring their actions against their statements. None of us can know what people are really thinking or feeling.
What exactly has Romney done that frightens you so much? Guilt by Mormon? You're going to have to do better. And thanks for all of the name calling. I think I have now been called just about everything this week. It is quite an accomplishment to be singled out so often. You would be more persuasive were you to use logical arguments and facts rather than threats and vulgarities. People persuade me to reconsider my views all of the time. It is why we have these conversations. People like you, however, don't have a chance. One of the names I was called earlier this week was puritan and as a puritan I am going to invoke my right to shun you and shun you deeply. Extreme? Yes, but necessary. We live in a cruel world. |
|
Instapunk update:
"There is method in the madness."
Is Instapunk creating a satire? Perhaps a modern day "Modest Proposal?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
The title of his satire might well read:
A Modest Proposal: For Preventing those "untrustable Mormon loons" from controlling the government of the United States and Publick worship by Evangelical Christians."
More over me thinks Dean is complicit.
Stay tuned for more... |
|
|
There seems to be an assumption here that you can say anything you like about Mormons, no matter how outrageous, and there won't be any political consequences. I can assure you this is mistaken. Republicans shouldn't take the Mormon vote for granted. Many Mormons won't vote for liberals; but I think they would vote for moderate Democrats (which do exist here in the West, as the 2006 election showed) rather than support a Republican party that is run by bigoted "conservatives" who try to dictate who is and is not a Christian. You can take this Mormon-bashing thing too far, and it could cost you the Mountain West in 2008. |
|
|
Well it comes down to this for one question anyway. If god spoke to you how would you know? And just for the sake of argument you either heard the voice internally or externally? |
|
|
And just for fun, if God didn't speak to you, how would you know that it wasn't God? |
|
O.K. Just for the sake of discussion. Let's assume that despite all the "Lydia's" of the world, we terrible Jihadist Mormon's manage somehow to brainwash the nation, or at least the Republican party into nominating Mitt Romney as the Republican candidate for the Presidency in 2008. Let's assume the Democrats nominate A)Hillary B)Obama C)Biden D)Edwards.
Would Lydia vote for them in preference to Mitt?
Now let's say that Guilliani wins the nomination.
I would vote for him, (despite the fact that I'm not terribly impressed by some of his personal decisions), over any of the Dems.
As a matter of fact, If for some reason Joe Lieberman became a Republican I'd vote for him any day over any of the Democrats. Now he's Jewish. I wonder what Lydia would think about that? |
|
And by the way. I have probably heard, considered and discussed every version of every Anti-Mormon argument out there. I haven't closed my ears yet.
Any time you want to go blow by blow theologically feel free to bring it on.
Ihave defended my beliefs against better men and women than you for many years. |
|
. . . all you've done is prove one of my points, which is that we Mormons keep answering the questions, but guys - um, apparently like you, frankly - keep ignoring them, or embracing the a priori that because such answers can't possibly exist, they therefore do not. But, hey! Look at this: Just popping over to this link alone:
http://wayoffbass.blogspot.com/2005/06/responding-to-critics-your-almost.html
Will bring you into contact with roughly 175 reviews covering over 100 anti-Mormons books, as well as numerous e-mail debates with professinal anti-Mormons. They're all there, just waiting for interested folks to read them. Many of them are amusing. All of them have actual footnotes, which are these strange little things scholars use to help people engage in their own fact-checking.
Or try this paper by William J. Hamblin (PhD. University of Michigan): "Basic Methodological Problems With the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon."
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=39
I've reduced by half the number of mouse clicks you'll need to complete to get to this neat little paper. See particularly the section titled "The Problem of Archaeological Proof," said proof being one of those annoying petards on which so, so many anti-Mormon critics keep getting hoisted, as the whole "proof" thang doesn't help the Bible very much, either:
"And what of Moses and the spectacular events of the Exodus from Egypt? "Absolutely no trace of Moses, or indeed of an Israelite presence in Egypt, has ever turned up. Of the Exodus and the wandering in the wilderness . . . we have no evidence whatsoever."[FN84] As an example, Dever cites "recent Israeli excavations at Kadesh-Barnea, the Sinai oasis where the Israelites are said to have encamped for 38 years."[FN85] Surely such a lengthy stay by such a large group, somewhere during or prior to 1200 B.C., would leave considerable evidence. And, indeed, the Israeli excavations at Kadesh-Barnea "have revealed an extensive settlement, but not so much as a potsherd earlier than the tenth century B.C."[FN86]
Oh, snap!
Good thing we LDS believe the Bible without feeling as if it needs to be proven archaeolgically.
Anyway, enjoy your reading! And check those footnotes. Hamblin could be lying his tuckus off, after all.
|
|
I can’t believe the lack of outrage by the mainstream media and other ‘rights’ groups. It is ridiculous that in a politically correct age an obscure "Macaca" comment can derail George Allen, yet all the outright bigotry toward Mitt Romney’s faith goes not only unchecked, but is further perpetuated by media outlets like the New York Times, etc. Unbelievable!
-MR
Together, we can find the truth…
http://www.mittreport.com
|
|
I used the word dangerous because that is how you would treat a Mormon president.
Like I have stated before though....why?? Why is he untrustworthy from a religious standpoint. If you don't like his politics that is one thing and that is totally understandable.
But I defy you to name one instance where ane elected Mormon official has used his power to push his religious agenda.
Please think about this rationally. |
|
and now we are classified with nazi's pornographers, democrats and muslim terrorists by lydia??
Who do you think we are?????
Do you know any Mormons???
Did one run over your dog or something?
Why are you so bitter??? |
|
Lydia,
Ted Kennedy & Rick Santorum are both Catholics.
They share the same theological beliefs, however, they don't share the same political beliefs.
Russell Feingold & Dennis Prager are both Jews.
They share similar theological beliefs, however, they don't share the same political beliefs.
John Edwards & George W. Bush are both Protestant Christians.
They share similar theological beliefs, however, they don't share the same political beliefs.
Harry Reid & Orrin Hatch are both Mormons.
They share the same theological beliefs, however, they don't share the same political beliefs.
As you can see from my examples, people of the same theology can arrive at different political beliefs.
And people of differing theology can arrive at SIMILAR political beliefs.
Thus, Lydia, your premise that because Mitt Romney believes in the Book of Mormon, he therefore cannot be trusted to make sound decisions in the political arena----well, your thesis simply does not hold water.
By the way, the state of Utah---the state with the most Mormons---happens to vote more consistently Republican than other red states which have a much larger Evangelical Christian electorate than exists in Utah.
In the pluralist arena of American politics, the bottom line is how a politician governs or votes---it's not what breakfast cereal he eats, not what kind of music he listens to, and not which church service he attends. |
|
|
Why didn't I think of that? It is so obvious. There are lots of people commenting here who don't have a clue about why we have separation of church and state or what religious tolerance means. They should take a little time to go back and study what happens when societies allow one religion to oppress another. The dark ages were "dark" for good reason. In this country, we tolerate the existence of all religions. Our founding fathers believed that religion breeds virtuous men. It is not the government's role to question the validity of one man's virtue based on which church he belongs to. A man is either virtuous or he is not. A bad Mormon is no different than a bad Catholic or bad Jew or bad Baptist and so on. Who is anyone here to declare that Mormons cannot be trusted? Show me the evidence that elected Mormons are any worse than anyone else? Nobody is asking about Giuliani's religion but everyone is bending over backward to get us to overlook his very serious character flaws. There are lots of Mormons out here in California and alot of evangelical Christians too but I have yet to come across anything approaching the kind of bigotry I am witnessing at these so-called "conservative" blogs. If you won't tolerate others, why should anyone tolerate you? Are we reverting to ancient tribalism? |
|
Maybe I should stop going to sunday school and just come to Townhall.com to know what I as a mormon believe???
Golden salamander???
give me a break and please stop telling me what I believe. None of what you said accuratly descibes Mormon doctrine.....stop reading anti-mormon garbage.
|
|
It is abundantly clear that eleutheros is one of the people who is "generally ignorant of what a Mormon must believe to be a Mormon.
I must believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost.
"And this is life Eternal, that they might know Thee, the Eternal God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent"
I must belive that through the Atonement of Christ I may be saved by obedience to his Law.
"If you love me, Keep my Commnandments"
I must belive that we are punished for our own sins and not for Adam's transgression.
"As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
I must believe that the family unit is meant to last forever.
"Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven."
I must strive to Love God with all my heart, might, mind and strength, and my neighbor as myself.
I must keep the 10 commandments which God gave Moses on Mount Sinai.
Including:
Keep the Sabbath Holy.
Do not committ Adultery or Fornication
Do not bear false witness
I must strive to build the Kingdom by contributing og my time, talents and means.
"Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse that there may be meat in mine house and prove me now herewith saith the Lord of Hosts, if I will not pour you out a blessing that there may not be room enough to receive it."
I must strive to keep my body and mind pure and free from filth and pornography of any kind.
"Know ye not that ye are a temple of God?"
I must try to treat others as I would be treated.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
I must be baptized and recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.
"Except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God"
I must try to do all the good I can.
"By their fruits ye shall know them."
"The fruits of the spirit are these, peace, joy, love."
All the quotes are Biblical. The fruit demonstrated in the anti-mormon responses in this blog are bitter fruit indeed. I know what fruit I would rather partake of. |
|
I am amazed at the ignorance of those distinguishing between "Mormons" and "Christians."
Mormons are Christians (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints). The biggest distinction and one that impressed me greatly when I converted is the that LDS Christianity is free of two thousand years of apostacy and Catholic-Eastern Orthodox-Protestant politics and political revisionism.
So many of the things I am reading in these comments are vigorous expressions of ignorance. Those who feel they must criticize should at least arm themselves with facts. Any member of the LDS church would be happy to help them. |
|
OK. I will concede that there is some uncertainty about the Salamander. Will you admit that Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, was a soothsayer. There is ample evidence that he was know throughout the region of New York (Palmyra) and in Pennsylvania, as a diviner or seer in search of hidden treasures using peep stones and divining rods? Do you acknowledge that he claims to have been visited by an angel named Moroni on the night of the Autumnal equinox, a mystical hour commonly associated with magical invocations and sorcery.
Or perhaps, you are unfamiliar with the roots and origins of the Mormon faith. Then I could readily understand why you appear indignant and defensive. Many Mormons don’t know the gritty details of this man who professes to have been visited by Jesus, John the Apostle and John the Baptist. They don’t know that the man who claimed to have received the Golden Plates and the spectacles (Urim and Thurim) that enabled him to read the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics supposedly inscribed on them, was involved in magic.
Perhaps you are unaware of the many enormous distinctions between orthodox Christian beliefs and the vaunted superior revelations claimed by Joseph Smith, such as the doctrine of pre-existing souls, the evolution towards godhood, the secret temple ceremonies, the doctrine of polygamy, the priesthood of male members, their promise of their own planet to be populated with their own progeny. Smith’s doctrine that god was once a man and that he and every other man is evolving to be a god.
In my first post, I acknowledge that the Mormon cult produces some fine citizens, good families and people with high morals. This is entirely possible, but it says nothing about false doctrines that constitute the system of beliefs that make up the secret society called the LDS. The question I pose, is can I vote for a man that believes the fantasies and lunatic teachings of Joseph Smith? Do I consider him fit to be president. No and No.
Can I say this without offending you? Probably not, for that I am sorry, but I would offer my hand to you and pray with love in my heart, that you and he would be delivered from this heresy.
For a detailed and comprehensive description of the early Joseph Smith, see the following:
http://www.gnosis.org/ahp.htm
|
|
He hides behind the deception that makes Mormonism so sinister. Let my take away some of that deception introduced by the use of names and words hijacked from Christian theology and doctrine and redefined in the cult of Mormonism. This tactic allows the Mormon to speak right past the average man on the street. He can sound so traditional, when Daddy O and I both know his words mean something entirely different from what they mean in Christian context.
The Father – they teach he was once a man and became god.
His son Jesus Christ – they teach that he was born by a physical union between the father and the Mary and that he is a man evolving to godhood.
The atonement of Christ – is not sufficient for the Mormon. To get your own planet to populate as you become a god, you must be a member of the Mormon church in good standing, which means tithe and surrender to the authority of the apostles (Mormon leaders) and participate in their ritual ceremonies (in secret).
Family unit is perpetual – Jesus said in Mark 12:25, “When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like angels in heaven.
Sabbath keeping – Saturday is the seventh day and the Sabbath, they don’t keep the Sabbath. Paul writes to the church in Galatia (Gal 5:1-5) that those who seek to be justified by keeping the law are obligated to do the impossible in keeping the whole law, Christ profits them nothing, they are fallen from grace. He also tells the church of Colosse to not accept judgment form people because of their ot keeping the Sabbath (Colossians 2:16)
Baptism – the only baptism the Mormon accepts is performed in the secret, closed rituals of the Mormon church. It is exclusive of Baptisim in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit performed by anyone who is not an approved member of their priesthood.
I take no exception to the meritorious conduct of the typical Mormon based on the morals found in the scriptures. It is the doctrines connected with God, who He is, Who his Son is, what He has done for us in the way of salvation. What salvation means and how it is received. These are critical doctrines in orthodox Christianity and the Mormon Church makes its mark by subscribing to the bazaar explanations of these things found in the ramblings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. They are undeniably different from Christianity. They sometimes use the same words, but when you peel the onion back, you discover they have very different and essential meanings that are alien to Christianity.
|
|
The Bible and the Book of Mormon both teach that works are necessary but not sufficient.
Works necessary.
Matthew 7:1521,24 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheeps clothing but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye SHALL KNOW THEM BY THEIR FRUITS. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so, every good tree bringeth forth good fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Not everyone that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; BUT HE THAT DOETH THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN. (Note: Jesus says that God in Heaven is his father, not just the mormons. Also note he was born of Mary. What is unscriptural about that?)
Therefore, whosover HEARETH THESE SAYINGS OF MINE, AND DOETH THEM, i WILL LIKEN HIM UNTO A WISE MAN WHICH BUILT HIS HOUSE UPON A ROCK.
Romans 2:13 ...but the DOERS of the law shall be justified.
Works not sufficient:
...For we know that it is by GRACE THAT WE ARE SAVED, AFTER ALL WE CAN DO.
Book of Mormon 2nd Nephi 25:23
Grace and Works are like two blades of a pair of scissors, they cut together. I thing even Eleutheros would agree that it is good to do good.
Baptism is required by Christ: See the scripture in my previous comment. And yes, I believe that valid baptism is performed by those who hold the authority or Priesthood to perform it. That priesthood power has been restored to the earth by The Father and the Son and by the ministering of angels in these latter days.
I do not judge anyone or look down on them if they do not believe as I believe. I just wish they could experience the joy and peace that I feel.
And in answer to Lydia's comment. It saddens me to think that She equates Mommons to Nazis and Muslims when so many good Mormon men have died fighting Nazism and in the Irag and Afghanistan conflicts. Or that she mentions pornographers in the same list as Mormons when the church has been so strong in fighting all forms of pornography.
Readers judge for yourselves. Whose tone is bitter, vindictive, arrogant and ignorant?
|
|
Eleutheros also writes that Mormons blieve that God was once a man and that Man can become a
God.
If Jesus is God, and I think Eleutheros and I share that belief, then note the following.
John 5:18-19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do, For whatsoever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise."
So if Jesus was born as a baby, died and was ressurected and ascended to his Father, and if Jesus does nothing be what he has seen the Father do, Then Jesus says that Gods was born died and was ressurected. Even if you cannot belive that. If Jesus is God then since he was born of a woman, died and was resurrected then God indeed did these things. Jesus calls himself the Son of Man several times in scripture.
Now, Read Revelation 3:21
"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."
And Matthew 5:48
"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
So Jesus says that as he overcame and was perfected and rules in the heavens with his Father so we, because of his perfect Atonement, can be perfected in him and rule in the heavens with him in his throne.
So the doctrine that As man is God once was, and as God is man may become is Bible doctrine. I just quoted Jesus words out of the Bible to confirm it. |
|
Speaking of False Prophets, I'm glad you brought this up. It speaks right to the heart of the grave concern that orthodox evangelical Christians have with the candidate. He believes in a fantasy delivered to the world by an angel through a known sorcerer, a so called gospel that conflicts in many important ways with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the eternal word become flesh. So I ask you, how you square this with the words of Paul: "Gal 1:8-9
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"
The condemnation could not be stronger.
In your second post, you prove my point on how the Mormons redefine words to permit themselves to speak of their doctrines in ways that seem perfectly reasonable to the novice. When in fact, they know there is a great difference. The scriptures do not say that Jesus was a man that evolved to become God. They reveal the marvelous truth that God chose to condescend to become a man for the purpose of delivering us from sin.
The Apostle John writes in his Gospel:
“John 1:1-3
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.”
and
John 1:14
“14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. “
The Apostle Paul writes:
“Phil 2:5-8
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross!”
To speak of the Word (Jesus) in terms of "as man is God once was" is pure, unadulterated blasphemy. Thank you for dropping your guard and demonstrating the heresy and deceit.
|
|
Eleutheros,
If there had never been a prophet before== If there had never been true prophets. We would have no Bible. Your interpretation pre-supposes that the gospel that Paul and Jesus taught is the same doctrinal system that you adhere to.
If that is true then your point would be valid and we are accursed.
If the gospel that Paul and Jesus taught was lost from the earth through the apostasy, that Peter and Paul warned would happen, (2 Thes 2:3, Gal 1:6 (And the fact that there have been no Prophets or additional scripture for nearly two millenia seems a good indication of the apostasy).
And if Joseph Smith in answer to prayer, after reading the Bible verse in James 1:5 did in fact see God the Father and His son Jesus Christ, then they authorized him to restore the gospel and gave him the power to do so.
Then Paul's warning to the Galatians would cut the other way, and you would be the one in trouble.
I assume that you believe in a trinitarian Godhead. If I am wrong feel free to say so.
The doctrine of trinity is nowhere written in the Bible. The oneness that the Godhead posesses is explained by Jesus in his great intercessory prayer in John 17. When he prays that the apostles will be one as he and the Father are one he is not suggesting that they become one amorphous mass. Rather they are to be one in love, in purpose and in doctrine.
As a matter of fact we are told in Ephesians 2:20 and 4:11-16 That the church is built on the foundation of Apostles and Prophets and that they are necessary until we all come to a unity of faith. The very fact that you and I are having this conversation shows that Prophets are still necessary.
Paul saw Jesus on the road to Damascus and they called him crazy.
Moses saw God and "spoke to him face to face as a man speaketh to his friend."
Isaiah saw the Lord in Vision.
Stephen saw "Jesus standing on the right hand of the Father", and he was stoned to death for it.
If God spoke to man in ages past why can he not do so again? Do you disbelieve Paul and Moses, and Isaiah and Stephen and the Apostles who felt the prints of the nails in Jesus hands and feet? Who ate with him and touched him? He told them that "a Spirit hath not Flesh and bones as ye see me have."
He is the great creator of this earth and all things upon it. He was in the beginning with God. God is his Father. Jesus said so over and over again. He was born of a woman. Her name was Mary. God the Father was His Father. He died, he was resurrected with a perfected glorified body of flesh and bone that the Apostles could and did touch. He spoke to them after his death and resurrection. Two angels spoke to the Apostles upon Christ's ascension into heaven, "Ye men of Galilee, why stand you gazing into heaven? This same Jesus shall come again in the same manner that you have seen him go." All this is straight from the pages of the Bible. I did not drop my guard when I said what I said. I spoke it knowingly, with great confidence. Jesus said that a Bad tree cannot bring forth evil fruit. You yourself admit that Mormons are good upstanding, moral people. You cannot blaspheme and be good or moral or upstanding. The fruit of Mormonism is Good,
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is good.
When Jesus comes again to reign on the earth. When he stands again on the Mount of Olives, when he opens his mouth to speak, then will you turn away because he speaks words other than those in the Bible?
My attitude as expressed in Phil 2:5-8 is one of humble, grateful adoration of my Savior who died for me and atoned for my sins. Without him I am nothing. With him I can be a joint heir and posess all the the Father hath. So says the Bible and I believe the Bible. Romans 8:17, Psalms 82:6 And , by the way the King James version of Phil 2:5-8 Says that Jesus thought it not robbery to be like God.
The Jews often accused my Savior, Jesus Christ of Blasphemy because he said he was the Son of God. This is the very reason he was put to death. They said he blasphemed. Jesus told Mary upon his resurrection that he ascended to 'My Father and your Father and My God and thy God."
You and I can quote scripture after scripture to support our points. But there is quite enough evidence from what I have already quoted to demonstrate that my belief system of Christianity, and YES IT IS CHRISTIANITY! Is at least as valid as yours.
We are not mad men, we are not liars or deceivers. And we are not apologetic about our religion. It is the true and living gospel, restored to the earth by God to a Prophet. Joseph Smith was that man. When the angel came to Joseph he told him that "your name shall be had for good and evil among all nations and kindreds".
You ,my dear Eleutheros, are fullfilling that prophecy by having this little chat with me.I am not going away, I am not cowed by your evidence. There is nothing you have used that I have not heard before. I know that I speak the truth. |
|
Oh please don’t go away. Sincerely! You are serving a great purpose. Do you know how hard it is to get the average Mormon to admit they don’t believe in the Trinity? Or to admit that they reject the historic interpretation of the scriptures. Or better yet, to admit they have a new gospel. You have done all of this and more. The only thing more difficult is getting the Mormon to admit there are mammoth inconsistencies in their belief system.
It is amazing how convoluted the Mormon argument for the soothsayer Joseph Smith is. To accept your contention that God “authorized him to restore the gospel…” one must reject Paul’s stern warning to the Galatians concerning the introduction of the competing belief systems. Amazingly, Smith introduced with his cult key elements of both of those false systems (legalism and Gnosticism.) Thank you again for this admission, I am hoping that thousands of people are reading this string. Just for the record, I bear you no malice and I did not condemn you. However, Paul condemned those who present these new gospels.
You have invoked an important scripture;
Ephesians 2:20-21
20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. NIV
Perhaps you would like to tell us about the excommunication of most of the witnesses that claimed they saw Joseph Smith’s golden plates. Since his credibility is so vital to your present day church and its doctrines, it is interesting that the very people that assert his credibility were put out of his movement. It seems to me that the apostles and prophets Paul had in view when he wrote this inspired passage were not engaged in sorcery in Palmyra, NY. You have made Smith the chief cornerstone in your foundation. In site of what Paul wrote.
Or, perhaps you would enlighten us about this evolution of man to god. What do you say about pre-existence of every living soul and the planet that each good Mormon male will receive to populate with his children. Where was this in the doctrine of the apostles and the prophets. Now you and I know the only apostles and prophets that owned this particular revelation got lynched by an angry mob in Nauvoo, IL in June of 1844 for destroying the press of a newspaper that dared to expose his heresy in print. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr.#Death
Tell me friend, how is it god told your prophet that Negros were not fit to enter your temples or be priest (as every other male) in your church. I know that doctrine has changed, did god make a mistake or was this apostle of yours a false prophet? You have every right to tell me I cannot enter the temple during its rituals, but perhaps you will tell us some details about the rituals. Why do you wear secret symbolic underwear, ops I forgot, there are some things you are sworn to keep to secrecy. The secrecy surrounding your false belief system is very convenient as it gives you a way to mystify your initiates, cow and intimidate those who waiver from your faith and question the doctrines, and mask the truth from the rest of the world.
There are more than a few dirty little secrets. Like the Mountain Meadows massacre. It is common historic fact that, under the leadership and direction of Bingham Young, the Mormons slaughtered innocents at Mountain Meadows in order to prevent outsiders from encroaching on their new domain. Don’t you just wish those prying, nosey unbelievers would just go away! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre
Jesus said that in the last days there would be false prophets.
|
|
Are you hiding out in the Temple where we can't go? Did an Elder tell you to stop taking the bait? Or, perhaps you are reconsidering, that is my prayer for you. You can be free from the oppression of heresy.
There is mercy and forgiveness for every man that will repent, acknowledge the eternal diety of Jesus Christ and His perfect sacrafice on calvary. If Mit Romney would repent and become a Christian, the Republican Party would have a most excellent candidate. |
|
Eleutheros,
There are other things in life I have to do besides you.
Your tone in your last post is patronizing and offensive. The only thing keeping you out of the temple is yourself. If you wanted to pay the price of sincere and serious searching you could come to Christ by the restored ordinances of the Gospel, live worthy of a Temple recommend and recieve God's blessings there.
If you knew half what you claim to know about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You would know that Elder is not a presiding position in the church. I think what you were asking is if my Bishop or Stake Preident had asked me to cease and desist in writing these posts. The Church doesn't work that way. I have served in many Church positions. I know whereof I speak. I can write and speak to anyone I choose.
You tell me that I should repent. I think that repentence is one of those "works" that you tell me is not necessary. Since I have long ago accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior and worship him as my Redeemer by the shedding of his perfect Blood, I am now free from every oppression. I have no personal animosity toward you. My life is filled with joy and peace.
The larger question is what does "saving belief or faith" imply? When I converse with Evangelical Christians, like yourself, (and I have done this more than once), The exercise often seems futile because you mistakenly think that Mormons believe in salvation by good works, rather than grace through faith. I don't think that you believe that good works are completely unnecessary and superfluous to your salvation.
I often feel that when I write to you and other Evangelicals and carefully explain my understanding of the gospel, and then quote scripture from the Bible to document these beliefs, that your response is "canned". That is, that you are not answering the substance of what I say. I feel that you are quoting someone else's rhetoric, parroting what you have heard or read others say. I feel as if you don't pay careful and specific attention to what I am saying, that you are not trying to understand but rather to oppose.
For example, I described in detail, quoting scripture from the Bible, my understanding of unity between God the Father, His son Jesus Christ and those who Christ chose as his apostles. You did not answer.
I described and explained how works and faith are both necessary to salvation and supported my beliefs with scripture from the Bible. The one scripture I used from the Book of Mormon showed that Mormons believe we are saved by grace. You did not answer.
I exlained our position about how we become joint heirs with Jesus of all that the Father posesses. And quoted scripture from the Bible to substantiate what I said. I have seen no serious or sincere attempts by you, in these comments, to sincerely address these doctrines or even to explain the doctrine you believe.
Your scholarship is vague, unresponsive and slopy.
What you did in the last two postings is called a "shotgun argument" in debate. It presupposes that you can't answer the specific replies that I have already made, and in desperation you fling out everything that you think might distract from the points that you have not answered. You sound more like a "National Inquirer" Journalist than like a serious gospel scholar.
The fact that some of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon left the church and had ill will against Joseph Smith, makes the fact that they never denied their witness of the Book of Mormon an even more compelling and strenthens the witness that there was an actual record that Joseph had to translate from.
Three witnesses saw the angel and the plates.
Eight witnesses saw the plates with no supernatural happenings. They handled them with their hands and bore witness that the plates were real. If you say the three were hynotized or somehow decieved, the eight contadict you. If you say the eight were fooled by some kind of forgery, the three beheld an angel thus showing that angels were involved.
I spent most of a previous post explaining that I don't reject "Paul's stern warning to the Galatians", Rather, I acknowledge that the gospel taught by Joseph Smith is the same gospel taught by Paul. Did you answer n\my assertions in detail? You did not.
If there has been another gospel taught, it is surely the gospel of the Creeds of orthodox Christianity. The Athanasian and Nicene Creeds
which are extrabiblical attempts to define the nature and character of God. These creeds, created by men called together by the Emperor Constantine, who held no office in the church, are not canonized scripture, and yet are the foundation documents from which orthodox Christianity grows. If there is a gospel besides that preached by Paul, the creeds are most surely it.
I have studied the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
I have stood in the spot where it happened. It was a terrible thing. Brigham Young gave no order for it to happen, indeed he sent a messenger to tell the settlers to let the wagaon train pass unmolested. I have read five or six books on the topic and know wherelf I speak. Have you?
We believe in continuing revelation. So there is know inconsistency with God witholding the priesthood at one point and then allowing it to be given later. If you want to argue that point then you must also say that Christ was bigoted because he restricted his mission to the House of Israel, and you would also have to say that Peter waffled from this original position when he claimed to recieve a revelation that the gospel was to go to the Gentiles. If you believe Peter could recieve revelation, then you must concede that it is possible for God to speak to men through Prophets and Apostles.
The gospel you believe pre-supposes that God spoke to men and sent angels to them. Why are angels and visions and revelation now unnecessary? Is God dead, Is God unable to speak to us anymore? Doesn't he love us anymore?
Are our times any less troubled? Do we need any less help from God? Where is the revelation from God in your doctrine? Where are your apostles and prophets. Remember that we need them until we all come to a unity of the faith.
(another assertion you have not answered).
Finally, when you mock the temple you mock what is sacred and holy. It is unbecoming conduct for a Christian to mock the sincere beliefs of another. I trust that if you are serious about this conversation we are having that you will stop grandstanding for the "thousands" you hope are reading, (because the reality is that you and I are the only ones left commenting on this thread) and begin to have a real dialogue.
|
|
Jesus also said that by their fruits ye shall know them. This shows that there will be true and falso prophets. John in Revelations Chap 14 says of the last days, "And I saw another Angel, flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to them who dwelt on earth on the earth, and he cried with a loud voice saying "Praise God and give him glosry for the hour of his judgement is come, and worship him..." The Bible thus predicts that the gospel will be restored in the last days by an angel.
(The same one you see on the top of the Temples). |
|
|
Yep, I work a job too. But it had been two days since I heard from you. As I said before, I sincerly want to continue the dialog as it is important. I am at work now and will respond to your last after I get home. In the interval, take a deep breath. Drink some coffee, opps, you probably don't do that do you. Well, chat with you latter and try to keep Romney's run for the office in view. |
|
The difference between patronizing and provocative.
Before I begin my response to your points, allow me to say that I would vote for Romney if the only alternative were one of the current field of Democrat candidates. But I pray the Republican Party can do better. I am looking for someone new to emerge. Call it faith.
Daddy O. You can’t have it both ways! You open by saying that the tone of my last post is both patronizing and offensive. Then you go on later to say that you have no personal animosity towards me. I think you really intend to have no animus, but you’re going to have to work on this being offended problem. If you can accept that my style is not intended to be offensive, rather it is intended to be provocative, and then we can have a more dispassionate discussion and who knows, one of us may be convinced. I have taken no offence to anything you have written. I can also go along with you and pretend there is no one else in the room and our post are going unnoticed.
Early in our exchanges, I drew the conclusion that I was engaged in an interlocutory with a knowledgeable Mormon. Otherwise, I would have not used a provocative mode. You misjudge me if you think I am regurgitating someone else’s canned arguments. I have been teaching adults this Gospel of the New Testament for 36 years and can dissect it word by word going to the original Greek to make my case if necessary.
I have refrained from exegetical arguments because it was important to draw you out to demonstrate that we talk right past each other. As I have mentioned, we use many of the same words, but they have very different meaning in our disparate context. This makes the use of apologetics nearly impossible as there is a communication barrier that can only be bridged by the painfully slow process of juxtaposing our definitions for specific words with complex context associated with them. I believe this is the cause of your profound frustration with your discussions with evangelical orthodox Christians.
You say the only thing keeping me out of the temple is me. We both know how disingenuous that comment is. Any attempt to enter without going through the rituals and ranks of the Mormon priesthoods and becoming a temple Mormon, I would be forcefully removed and even arrested for trespassing. I am not even offended by being barred from the Temple. It is your Constitutional right of freedom of association and to exclude anyone you want. But, you should recognize the way this appears to all of us standing on the outside; it looks a lot like discrimination. Jesus taught us that he would take care of separating the wheat from the chaff when He returns but you folks want to be a little ahead of schedule, so I am not worthy to enter in. I have to wonder why you think God split the veil covering the entrance to the Holy of Holies when Jesus gave up His life on the cross. Then the Mormons come along, declare their Temple the sacred and holy place and lock the door like the veil was never split.
If Romney gets elected, does that mean that the Secret Service will have to provide him with temple Mormons trained as Secret Service to accompany him to Temple? Is this not illegal discriminatory hiring practices.
Fortunately, I know that Jesus has ended the need for all priesthoods with his once and for all entrance into the Holy of Holies in the heaven place of God. There he made the perfect offering for my sin and he abides as my advocate and the anchor of my soul. (Hebrews Chapter 9 lays this all out.)
Regarding my use of the term elder. You are right, I did not intend to capitalize the noun, That was a slip resulting from my own experience where it is used loosely to refer to senior members and more specifically, a leadership role similar to what the Baptist call a Deacon.
You seem to say, repentance is a form of works? If that is your view, we mean something entirely different when we speak of works. In my view, saving faith is like that which Abraham had. He believed God and he received the righteousness of Christ as a free gift. (Romans 4:1-5) This salvation is not the product of Abraham’s actions, as this scripture specifically excludes any possibility that God is brought into some obligation because of any works. However, the faith that Abraham possessed produced behavior in him that he would have otherwise not performed. He left Ur, taking his entire household and went to the promised land.
When you see me referring to Mormons, or numerous other faith systems engaging in justification by works (i.e., Roman Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists, some Pentecostals, etc.) I have a specific issue in view. Mainly, these people have rested their hope on approval from God and their fellow believers based on their performance of certain requirements. For instance; progressing through the ranks of the Mormon priesthoods, paying tithes, obligatory baptism, forgoing the use of certain foods or drinks. These examples demonstrate a belief that simple faith in Jesus is inadequate to achieve the station of sonship.
On the other hand, If an individual has been justified by God because of faith, their life should be changed by this experience. As they progress through life and Christ lives in them, this relationship results in works that are shaped and defined by the relationship. James (James 2:18-20) returns the argument to Abraham’s example and uses his compliance with God’s command to offer his son as evidence that faith must be accompanied by works or it is not genuine. However, the two passages taken in context show that the possession of simple faith is the factor that produces salvation and simple faith is manifest by obedience. The works are not a cause, they are an effect.
As for who God the Father is and who the Son Jesus Christ is, I most certainly did answer you. But let me try again to communicate the truth to you again. In John’s Gospel, the first three verses and verse 14 make it absolutely clear. It becomes even more clear when you go to the Greek and analyze the words the Holy Spirit gave to John to describe the relationship of the Father and the Son.
In both the Gospel and John’s first letter, he uses en archee to describe the beginning of all things. In the first three verses of the Gospel Theos is used for God the Father and o’logos is used to describe Jesus the incarnate son described again as o’logos in verse 14, where John states that the o’logos entered our world and lived with us. The Word is said to be with God in verse 1. The Greek phrase here for “with God” is pros ton Theon and this phrase carries with it an intimate association that can only be described in our language as a complete unity, not one, but the same kind of plurality as that in the ancient description of God in Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew: Elohiym which is a plural Hebrew term. John completes his description of this relationship in John verse 1 by saying that the Word in eternity was God, in the Greek: theos een ho logos. Three times in this passage, John uses the verb een (an imperfect form or eimi ) and this conveys the concept that the o’logos having no beginning as men have beginnings. In Verse 14, when he addresses the incarnation, John switches to the verb egeneto and it conveys a distinctly different concept of beginning that is finite. Jesus used this same form of the verb (eimi) to say “I am” in John 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
Because of these truths, I believe that Jesus was, is and shall be coequal with God the Father in eternity. Not evolved to become a god, but eternally God.
I think you do not share this view.
I think that it is relevant that the excommunicated witnesses were put out of the Mormons Church and it does not add to their veracity, rather it detracts from the authenticity of Smiths claims. I don’t want to crowd this posting with evidences of Smith’s untrustworthiness, perhaps in a later posting we can go through some of the many historic testimonies against him.
On the other gospels presented by angels, your timing is off and a point-by-point comparison of doctrines makes your claim that Smiths gospel is the same as the Gospel that Paul subscribed to is tragically wrong. I have been responding to your assertions and answering in detail, look a little closer.
I admit I’ve never been to Mountain Meadows, but then, I have never been to Broken Knee either. I will accept that you have been concerned about this point of history and have researched, albeit, from the Mormon defensive position.
I also believe in continuing revelation. However, these revelations do not contradict or overturn the revelations that precede them. The wonderful truth is that the scripture (Bible) has a magnificent harmony throughout. The continuing communication of God with man when it is authentic does not disrupt that harmony and should be tested against the Bible. The introduction of the book of Mormon presents disharmony, contradiction and plagiarisms.
As to your interpretation of Eph 2:20 and 4:11-16; the need for apostles and prophets as a justification for your use of the nouns apostles and prophets to describe your church organization as having an exclusive structure representing perpetuation of the reformed church, this is a childish interpretation of an essential scripture. Throughout this letter, Paul is opening the eyes of the Church of Ephesus to the truth that the Church with all of its diverse functional members, was a design that God conceived in eternity, kept as a mystery until after the resurrection of Jesus, but was reflected in the human relationship of the husband and wife. He was describing the relationship of mutual service and self sacrifice as it was manifest in the members of the body. The unity of faith was not some mystical event in the future as an eschatological event; it is a condition that should exist in the Church just as Christ spent himself for the Church, the diverse members of the Church with their callings and roles should be spending themselves.
Your distortion of the passage in Philippians 2 misses the most precious part of this revelation. This is in part due to your reliance on the King James version which renders this verse poorly. I could choose several superior translations, but I think the one that gets the closest to the Greek is the Amplified Version. Let’s see what it says:
Phil 2:6-8
6 Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God], did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained,
7 But stripped Himself [of all privileges and rightful dignity], so as to assume the guise of a servant (slave), in that He became like men and was born a human being.
8 And after He had appeared in human form, He abased and humbled Himself [still further] and carried His obedience to the extreme of death, even the death of the cross!
AMP
He was more than the Son of God, though it is true that he is the Son of God. He is very God, just as the Father is and the Holy Spirit is. And this is where we differ on the most essential point.
1 John 5:20
20 We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true — even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. NIV
As I understand the writings of the Mormon church, your belief system is one that I would define as polytheism. In Mormonism, the Father is believed to be Adam evolved to the status of God, Jesus was an offspring (not the eternal Word) and the Holy Spirit is a spirit. The evangelical orthodox Christian community is monotheistic and believes that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one. Do you agree that this is an accurate description.
|
|
First, may I say that the tone was patronizing and offensive, but I was not offended. The gift of grace that the Son freely gave me allows me to choose whether or not to be offended.
Second, I feel the way about Rudy Guiliani and John McCain that you feel about Mitt Romney. Any of the above would be preferable to the Democratic field.
I also drew the conclusion that you have had experience in the Word of God. Our time teaching our respective doctrines is about equal. I teach a weekly class to LDS adults about the Gospel.
I can understand that you and other non-mormons could feel excluded and put off by the apparent secrecy of the temple. I hope that you can understand that the reason for the silence is that I take seriously the covenants I have made. You know and I know that there are people who have revealed the entire endowment and splashed it all over the internet, including the clothing worn and everything that is said and done. If they choose to violate the promises they made that is their choice.
I hesitate to use the following alalogy because of the sexual connotation but it is the best I can think of to explain:
My wife and I share and wonderful and glorious personal relationship. She is the love of my life, my confidant and my very dearest friend. We have made three wonderful chidren who are the light of our eyes. It is apparent that certain physical activity had to take place to get those kids here and to develop the kind of relationship we have. This is apparent. It is no secret. It is, however, most sacred. I would not think of revealing intimate details of out relationship with you or anyone else, even my children. I would certainly not invite you into the relationship to view those activities.
My wife and I constitute a mystical union that is joyful for us and pleasing to God. And it is only for members of that union. It is not for anyone else. The only way to qualify to enter this union is to wholeheartedly participate in the ordinances and rituals that constitute the marriage. The temple, and my worship there are likewise sacred and private.
When someone makes light of the Temple it is like they are poking fun at my marriage covenants. There is nothing there I am ashamed of. There is nothing vile or disgusting in the temple, just as there is nothing vile and disgusting about my intimate life. But I cannot appreciate someone talking in an everyday way about the endowment or revealing it. It is like throwing open my our bedroom door. It is none of their business. Does this make sense to you?
Please, be respectful of our beliefs, and teach others respect. As to what would be necessary should Mitt Romney win. I don't know. Do you think the secret service is allowed in the president's bed?
It is true that we think different things when we use some words. I know that and you know that. I wondered if you were playing to the crowd a little bit.
Now as to Jesus Status as God. I believe that he is fully God. I believe that he is coeternal with the Father and the Holy Ghost. I believe that Jesus is the premortal Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. I believe he lived a perfect life. I believe that he atoned for my sins. I do not believe that Adam is God the Father. Despite some mis-quoted material from the Journal of Discourses, attributed to Brigham Young. Adam is a creation of God.
Where your doctrine and our diverges here is probably in the concept that We believe that all matter is eternal. The Hebrew word, Barau, having the meaning of organizing from existing matter rather than creation ex nihilo. Thus we believe that the stuff we are made of has always existed, and that this matter is also Co-eternal with God. This allows us to escape the paradox of God being responsible for evil because under the ex nihilo concept he would have created it.
Much fun has been made of the Mormons because we believe that Satan was a son of God, who chose to turn against God. But this is cetainly no more problematic than God creating Satan because he created everything out of nothing. Rather Satan had a pre-disposition to rebell. God did not force him to be evil, but God will not force him to be good.
We disagree on the witnesses to the Gold plates. If I had lied about seeing the plates as a witness and then I were put out of the church by the very man who was trying to put one over on the world, I couldn't wait to expose the old so-and-so. That is human nature. The fact that two out of the three witnesses came back to the church is also evidence that they took it very seriously. If you can't see that it is your choice but it doesn't shake my faith.
You can argue with timing if you wish. but the precedent for having revelation brought to key actors in the drama of the gospel at key times is established. And the priesthood held by the apostles, and the visit of angels continued after the death and ressurection of Christ, thus making problematic the interpretation that Christ's resurrection obviated the need for further priesthood authority or revelation.
I think we both can admit that we are prejudiced in favor of our respective doctrines. I hope I am coming from a position supportive of Mormonism. I would be a truly poor member if I didn't.
In years of study of the Bible, the Book of Mormon and the other revelations given through Joseph Smith I have not found contradictions. Any apparent difficulties have been resolved to my complete satisfaction after further study. I will admit there are things I have not yet grasped. I would thing that would be true of your experience as well. You surely wouldn't claime to have all knowledge would you?
The unity of faith that you promulgate in your exegesis of Ephesians would be wonderful if everyone in each of the churches was doing it.
But they are not yet. I still maintain that the callings and offices noted by Paul are then still necessary. Again, I know you differ, but your logic doesn't seem any more pesuasive that mine to me.
As far as justification by fatih is concerned. I really don't think we are as far apart as you think. As a Mormon, I do not view my works as the cause of my salvation. If Christ had not died for me--if he had not taken my sins upon him--then nothing I could do would save me. We have all fallen short of the glory of God. The first time in my life I thought an unrighteous thought I was doomed to be forever shut out of God's presence. My perfect righteous Savior, Jesus Christ reconciled and redeemed me from death and hell.
Because he loved me first. Because he gave me this gift. Because he gave me life and light and even lends me air from moment to moment so I can live and breathe and have my being I praise him with all my might and my life. I would not have been able to come to him if he had not put the desire in my heart to come. I could not pray to him had he not allowed me to believe that he is.
All this said, the effect of my believing in God's perfect son is an intense desire to obey him. I do not obey him to gain brownie points.
I cannot ever put him in my debt. All my righteousness is as filthy rags without his sacrifice. I will never be out of his debt, nor would I desire it. Yet his requirements in Biblical writ indicate that he wants me to do certain things. He said, "If ye love me keep my commandments." I love him so I will. I don't know if that is a cause or an effect, but I know I will do it. Certainly Jesus seems to indicate that keeping his commandments is desirable, important and even necessary. As: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
You must forgive me for using the King James Version of the Bible. It's language lifts my soul. I will forgive you for using other versions, as well.
I would be interested to hear in the specific revelations that you believe are "continuing communication with God." I communicate with God daily. I pray. I do it because God loves me and he has asked me to pray. That is how I know that God lives, because he answers me.
I cannot totally agree with your statement of our belief as "polytheistic". I really don't know what to make of your monotheism when you say that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost ARE one. Shouldn't you more correctly say The Father, Son and Holy Ghost IS one?
I believe that The Father and the Son are glorified resurrected beings. I know Jesus resurrected with a body, that he showed to his disciples, and took with him into heaven and will return in like manner as he went. I know he says he only does what he has seen the Father do. So I believe he resurrected because he had seen the precedent of the Father's resurrection at some place or time. I know the Son at one time had a body. I see no good reason why he should have laid it aside. The Holy Ghost, according to our theology is a personage of spirit. His function is to bear witness to our spirits, thus the need for him to be a spirit.
I believe that the Father and Son and Holy Ghost have a unity more complete and deeper than any other. I believe it is a complete and total union of thought, desire, purpose, love and knowledge. To worship the Father is to worship each and all of the Godhead. Our best chance to understand this unity is in the institution and sacrament of marriage. My wife and I are two beings that have become a single entity. Our unity does not destroy our individuality, rather it augments, beautifies and perfects it. Our individuality does not do away with out unity.
My kids don't just love Mom or Dad. they love Mom and Dad. I am not jealous that the kids love Mom, their loving her makes me love them more. I understand this to be the type of unity Jesus prayed for his disciples in the great intercessory prayer. The very kind he and the Father and the Holy Ghost posess.
I am going to visit my kids this weekend, so my communication will be spotty. Not back til tuesday.
|
|
Daddy O
In the rack-and-stack of the current field, I put them in this order; you may take comfort in that Romney is ahead of both Giuliani (because of his abortion and gun control stands) and McCain (because of his attacks on the first amendment and evangelical Christians). However, I think Huckabee is the finest candidate in the field (even though he is a Calvinist).
Be sure of this, I am not making fun of the Temple. You will take no comfort in this; I see it as symbolic of the resurrection of a dead priesthood. It is my firm belief that the priesthoods that preceded Christ’s offering on the cross were intended each in their own way to inform of us the divine plan to bring us to the cross, His Son ‘s offering and His resurrection. I interpret the arguments in Hebrews 9 and 10 to teach that this sacrifice was entirely sufficient and that any return to the old priesthoods or any modeling after the old priesthoods to be an abandonment of the real thing to embrace a mere shadow.
To continue with your metaphor of the husband and the wife. There is no need to apologize for the use of this relationship to illustrate your thinking. Paul told us in Ephesians that God created this relationship for the express purpose of revealing the divine mystery of the relationship between the Church and Christ. I believe that every true believer has entered into a relationship of unity with the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9) Because of this every true believer is the Temple in this phase of God’s divine plan. (1 Corinthians 3:17 & 6:19 ) You will find this offensive, but I am being as honest with you as I know how. I equate the return to the secrecy of the Temple and all of the priestly ministrations associated with it to a return to a dead and decaying body, in a spiritual sense, necromancy.
The old earthly temple bound relationship with its dependency on priesthoods was not capable of establishing permanent personal relationships with the God of Israel. It was doomed to endless repetition under the old covenant (briyt in Jeremiah 31:31)) and was only to provide the believer with the hope of a future time in which the genuine, intimate and individual relationship of restored fellowship with the Father would be realized under the New Covenant (diatheke throughout Hebrews)
Hebrews 9:15
15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance — now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. NIV
Hebrews 10:9-10
9 Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. NIV
As to helping others understand Mormonism if Romney becomes President, That is why I have continued this dialog. As to your desire to protect the secrecy of your rituals, I cannot, they are already exposed by defectors, as you have already noted. As far as I can see, the only purpose that secrecy serves now is perpetuate the dead priesthoods and all of the power and control that brings to the hierarchy of the LDS. Please don’t make your self look silly by repeating the argument that such control doesn’t exist in your denomination. If you go off the ranch and begin talking out of school, we both know you will incur the wrath of the leadership, and risk being excommunicated. Since you believe that communion in the rituals of the LDS is essential to your standing before God, you are under their power. You are trapped.
With respect to the Secret Service and the president’s bedroom, I don’t think they stepped in to protect Bill Clinton from the lamp that was throne at him by his wife. But the Temple is not the bedroom, although the President may order the Secret Service to do as he pleases. But I think he (and perhaps you) are putting to high a trust on the membership to think he will not need protection in the Temple.
On the other and, I am convinced that every true believer is the Temple of God.
1 Corinthians 3:16-17
16 Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? 17 If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple. NIV
Communion in the Church means fellowship among the Church universal and not a denomination. I am a not trapped, I am a freeman (Eulutheros), Free from sin, free from bondage of corruption, free from the law, yet a bondservant to Christ.
1 Peter 2:16
16 Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. NIV
Playing to the crowd? No more than when Paul stood on Mars Hill and declared that he had an answer to their need to put up monuments to the “unknown god.” Evangelism is often playing to the crowds.
Here is where your unique vocabulary allows you to duck the truth about what you believe in public discourse. You say you believe that Jesus is fully God and that He is coeternal with the Father and the Holy Ghost. This sounds very orthodox. But we both know that you (Mormonism ala Joseph Smith and Brigham Young) have assigned special unorthodox meanings to these words.
First; you believe that all men are eternal. That God was once Adam and became the Father. So your “fully God” statement is deliberately misleading.
From your own: "Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar to that through which we are now passing. He became God — an exalted being — through obedience to the same eternal Gospel truths that we are given opportunity today to obey"
Hunter, Milton R. The Gospel Through the Ages. Salt Lake City: Melchizedik Priesthood Course of Study, 1945-1946.
Another of your teachers: "Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, and mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point where He now is" (Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, 1:123).
The doctrine of pre-existing souls does not exist in orthodox Christianity. We believe the soul comes into existence at the time of Conception. Not so with Jesus, as He, the Father and the Holy Spirit have always existed outside of the created dimension of time. We believe that God is a Spirit and that Jesus chose to become a man for the purpose of our redemption.
I will not admit a prejudice, however, you are free to do so if it pleases you. I have not prejudged. I have investigated the scriptures with an open mind and came to Biblical conclusions and sought out fellowship with people who put the Bible ahead of and above other philosophies and so called revelations.
I have great respect for the KJV and most of my memorization is in KJV prose. It is beautiful. I am not stuck on one translation. I have more than 20 translations on my PC alone and also have the Greek and Hebrew here at my disposal. However, at the time of the translation of the KJV, there was still much to learn about what had been forgotten concerning the ancient languages and the Dead Sea Scrolls were still in a jar in a cave at Quram.
Joseph Smith, however, made free use of the KJV in writing his Book of Mormon, even copying grammatical and translational errors. Opps, The Urim and the Thurrim didn’t come with a users manual did it.
I will not be so vain as to try to fill in the blanks that God has purposefully left in His revelation, so I cannot explain the how of the mystery of the Trinity. But I will defend the truth that it is clearly revealed as a fact in the scriptures. There are three, and they are one, which is why Genesis 1:1 uses the word Elohim ( a plural noun.)
1 John 5:6-8
6 This is the one who came by water and blood — Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. NIV
John 15:26
26 "When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. NIV
I may catch up on Tuesday. It depends.
|
|
I have some questions for you just so I can get a fix on your particular doctrinal thinking:
1.Did God create everything out of nothing? and did God create evil? Is God resposible for Evil?
(Genesis 1:1-31)
2. Does God have a tangible body of flesh and bone? (Luke 24:36-39)
3. Was Jesus born to Mary? (Luke 2:6-7)
4. Who was the Father of Jesus? (Matthew 1:26-38)
5. Did Jesus die? (John Chap 19)
6. Was Jesus resurrected? (John Chap 20)
7. What was the purpose of Jesus showing his resurrected body to the Apostles? (Luke 24:36-39)
8. Did Jesus keep the body that he resurrected with? (Acts 1:1-11)
9. Do you believe that Jesus will come again to the earth?
10. Do you believe that the Apostles Peter, James, John, Paul and others had authority to act in God's name? a)while Jesus was among them. b) after his ascension to heaven. c)a&b
d)they had no authority.
11. Why was Jesus baptized? (Matthew 3:13-17)
12. Explain Jesus, standing in the Water, the Spirit Descending like a dove, the voice of the Father from Heaven. How does this square with your concept of God? (Matthew 3:13-17)
12. Why did Jesus disciples baptize? John 3:1-4
Why did Peter and the apostles teach Baptism? (Acts 2:37-47)
13. How did the Apostles confer the Holy Ghost? (Acts 8:14-19)
14. Why was Matthias called to the Apostleship? (Acts 1:15-26)
15. Did Jesus ask us to keep his commandments?
16. How can we tell if someone loves God?
17. If someone who is born again of God falls into sin anew and stops doing what God asks. Is he/she still saved?
18. Do you belong to a particular denomination?
Which one if yes.
19. You mentioned that one candidate you like is a Calvinist? Can Calvinists be saved?
How about Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians,
Baptists, Episcopalians?
20. Can someone who never heard of Jesus Christ be saved? How?
21. Do you accept the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds as authoritative and/oe canonical?
22. When we are married and have children are we not participating in a godlike act of creation.
Are we not multiplying and replenishing the earth?
I know there are a lot of questions. You don't need to go into detail but I would be interested in your answers.
Daddy o
|
|
Daddy O,
I will pick the five that demonstrate with the most clarity the historic and present day distinction between the Mormon Belief system and Biblical christianity.
It is a whole lot less time consuming to list questions than provide thoughtful answers. Because of the vast differences in Mormon definitions of terms, it will be necesary to establish context for some of these. So I hope you will understand that even five may take until tomrrow.
If I find more time, I may do more.
This one doesn't count - # 18 Church of God of Cleaveland, TN |
|
Daddy O,
The answer is absolutely. Especially since the press and the Democrat Party are allready and will continue to portray the Republican Party as divided by petty squables between rival religious factions.
Even more so, because any credibility the candidacy achieves will tend to assist in the deception that Mormonism is Christianity and souls will be lost as a consequence. |
|
I appreciate the time necessary. I hope you will spend the time talking about what you believe. I don't like to misrepresent the beliefs of others so I thought it best to get the answers straight from you.
By the way. Adam as God is not a doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I do not believe it. The Church does not believe it. I know the references where you got it. They are misquotations. |
|
|
Context is important isn't it? I have had much experience with people talking about my beliefs out of context. |
|
We are discussing the question of the validity of considering the beliefs of Mormon priests when they run for public office. I maintain that it is an important consideration, it does matter that Mit Romney is a Mormon priest. Primarily because the strongly held religious beliefs are part of what make up the man, perhaps even more important than the life he leads. This because those beliefs frame his interpretation of the world around him, the behavior of others and will impinge on the policy he advances, both domestic and foreign. I believe the faith system of LDS holds all other religions in contempt, believes itself to be the only true religion, and holds all of its members (even a President) in their tight grip in the secrecy of the operations of the priesthood. For the committed LDS member, this is a powerful influence, little understood by the public.
Daddy O asked me to address a list of questions:
All scripture I presented in response to his questions are in the New International Version. Because the Mormon Church has prevented numerous essential books from being published online, like Articles of Faith by James Talmage, it is necessary to purchase these texts even tough they should be in the public domain, I have had to resort to the use of quotations of Mormon doctrine borrowed from the works of Walter Martin. (from Kingdom of the Cults, Copyright © 1997 The Estate of Walter Martin.) This is another example of the use of the veil of secrecy to conceal the history and evolution of Mormon beliefs from the public. There is a ton of publications on line asserting authoritative explanation of alleged misquotes and misrepresentations, but try to find the original publications. Good luck. So, unless you can show me sites that freely publish the material in question, don’t bother to accuse folks like Dr. Martin of misrepresenting Mormonism. Your complaint rings hollow as long as Mormons make it difficult if not impossible for me to compare the original sources to the critics assertions.
1.Did God create everything out of nothing? and did God create evil? Is God resposible for Evil?
(Genesis 1:1-31)
Yes
No
No
2. Does God have a tangible body of flesh and bone? (Luke 24:36-39)
I know and you know when you use the word God, you mean something entirely different from me so, I am breaking my answer down to the following three parts.
God the Father – No, if you mean the one the OT calls Elohim, He is spirit and not material.
John 4:24
24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."
2 Corinthians 3:17
17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
1 Timothy 1:17
17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
God the Son – yes, Jesus was spirit and became a man of flesh.
John 1:14
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Hebrews 2:14-17
14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death — that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. 16 For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants. 17 For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.
1 John 4:2-3
2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
God the Holy Spirit – no. He is not an it, not a thing, not a force, he is a person of the God Head. Jesus promised that the person we know as the Holy Spirit would assume a new role acting to bring us comfort in the Church age and He is the one who would teach us of Jesus and the things that Jesus said after His departure. Mormon leadership has been all over the map on this issue. Sometimes teaching that the Holy Spirit is a person and sometimes making Him to be something less than a person, Brigham Young frequently referred to the Holy Spirit as it. Perhaps the Prophet lacked discipline in this matter. However, James Talmage came close to being charged with apostasy over this issue because there was so much contention over it and accepted advice to edit his teachings on the subject to be less definitive and allow the issue to be more-or-less unsettled. Parsing language as the LDS do today to pretend to have a tradition of orthodoxy on this subject is disingenuous.
John 14:26
26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
Mormon doctrine on the nature of God has been a moving target. Revisions, canonization and de-canonization of parts of various publications and sermons of successive Mormon Apostles and Prophets has created a labyrinth of statements that Historically, Mormons have denied the immaterial, spiritual nature of God the Father and have reduced the Holy Spirit to a thing or it vice a person.
Referring to the Nicene Creed and early church theology on the trinity, Mormon Apostle James Talmage, in The Articles of Faith, declares: "It would be difficult to conceive of a greater number of inconsistencies and contradictions expressed in words as here. ... The immateriality of God as asserted in these declarations of sectarian faith is entirely at variance with the scriptures, and absolutely contradicted by the revelations of God's person and attributes " (p. 48).
Again Talmage writes in Articles of Faith:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims against the incomprehensible God, devoid of "body, parts, or passions," as a thing impossible of existence, and asserts its belief in and allegiance to the true and living God of scripture and revelation. ... Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh. ... Jehovah, who is Jesus Christ the Son of Elohim, is called "the Father" ... that Jesus Christ, whom we also know as Jehovah, was the executive of the Father, Elohim, in the work of creation as set forth in the book Jesus the Christ, Articles of Faith, chapter IV (48, 466-467).
So I ask you, if I apply the logic of Talmage and others, when we see the Father, is He going to have wings? Is He going to have feathers? The OT describes Him in these terms just as it does say that He has hands and other appendages. Now I know that these intelligent men understand the use of metaphoric language and anthropomorphic manifestations. The problem is, they seem to selectively acknowledge them only when it is convenient to maintain their preconceived belief in a material existence of God.
I don’t accept the line of argument that the passage in John 4 is less than literal in its description of God as a spirit. With respect to the person Jesus was speaking to, a material (corporal) woman, he was addressing a mode of worship, not the nature of the person. Distinguishing between these two is not problematic.
3. Was Jesus born to Mary? (Luke 2:6-7)
Yes
4. Who was the Father of Jesus? (Matthew 1:26-38)
God the Father through the divine agency of the Holy Spirit. I believe that this was a miraculous event that required no contact or movement of God in time and or through space. It was every bit an act of creation as speaking the world into existence from nothing. Of course this is possible because I believe in the existence of God the Spirit without a material existence. The angel spoke to Mary to reveal to her how the OT prophecies would be accomplished in her service to God. The miracle in her womb was greater than the fact of the conception without coitus, the incarnation of the eternal Word of God was far more significant. The fact that God’s plan included the commitment of the eternal O’ Logos (Word) to becoming our brother for the purpose of our redemption is the real miracle of the Virgin Birth.
The relationship between Jesus and the Father is not related to the mode of His conception. This relationship is defined by who Jesus is in eternity and not the forms that He takes at different times. In God’s perfect design, as He created the world and the living creatures in it, he has communicated relationships that we describe as Father and Son. These factors in his creation teach and serve to open to us an understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son. Jesus consonantly referred to this relationship and it was obvious by His prayers and the anthropomorphic manifestations that the Son observed and submitted to the authority of the Father.
Matthew 11:25-27
25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26 Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.
27 "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
5. Did Jesus die? (John Chap 19)
Yes
6. Was Jesus resurrected? (John Chap 20)
Yes, however, your question implies a third party. He raised Himself up. The Father gave Him the power to both lay down His life and to take it up again. This does not discount the Father’s role in the resurrection of Jesus, but it accentuates for us the voluntary and empowered nature of His actions.
John 10:17-18
17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life — only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."
Acts 4:33
33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all.
1 Corinthians 15:12
12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? NIV
1 Peter 1:3
3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
7. What was the purpose of Jesus showing his resurrected body to the Apostles? (Luke 24:36-39)
8. Did Jesus keep the body that he resurrected with? (Acts 1:1-11)
Yes
9. Do you believe that Jesus will come again to the earth?
Yes
10. Do you believe that the Apostles Peter, James, John, Paul and others had authority to act in God's name? a)while Jesus was among them. b) after his ascension to heaven. c)a&b
d)they had no authority.
Yes
Yes
Yes
11. Why was Jesus baptized? (Matthew 3:13-17)
To fulfill all righteousness
12. Explain Jesus, standing in the Water, the Spirit Descending like a dove, the voice of the Father from Heaven. How does this square with your concept of God? (Matthew 3:13-17)
With reference to the voice from heaven and the appearance of the image of the dove, an anthropomorphic manifestation. Not unlike the visual manifestation of God as a pillar of smoke and fire over the tabernacle in the wilderness, or the burning bush, or the tongues of fire and the sound of a rushing, mighty wind . In each of these, God appealed to the senses He gave us to communicate or bridge the spirit world for our edification, revealing something about His nature, His plan His purposes.
As you know, I believe in the orthodox Christian, monotheistic doctrine, of the Trinity, one God in three persons. As I understand the Mormon doctrine, it is polytheistic in that it teaches that God the Father was once a man, became Adam, evolved to a position superior to man (as man on earth is now) and all men are in the process of evolving along these same lines. Although the God-Adam doctrine has morphed over time, there is one constant, Mormon doctrine has always held that each man is becoming a God and is therefore polytheistic. If that is not so, please feel free to say so.
Apostle Orson Pratt, writing in The Seer, declared: "In the Heaven where our spirits were born, there are many Gods, each one of whom has his own wife or wives, which were given to him previous to his redemption, while yet in his mortal state" (p. 37).
“The following quotations are excerpted from a sermon published in the Mormon newspaper Times and Seasons (August 15, 1844, 5:613-614) four months after Smith delivered it at the funeral of Elder King Follett, and only two months after Smith's assassination in Carthage, Illinois…
“I want you all to know God, to be familiar with him. ... What sort of a being was God in the beginning?
First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heavens, is a man like unto one of yourselves ... if you were to see him today, you would see him in all the person, image and very form as a man. ...
I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are the simple and first principles of the gospel, to know for a certainty the character of God, that we may converse with him as one man with another, and that God himself; the Father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did ... what did Jesus say? (mark it elder Rigdon) Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power; to do what? Why what the Father did, that answer is obvious. ... Here then is eternal life, to know the only wise and true God. You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves; to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you — namely, by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as doth those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.”
(from Kingdom of the Cults, Copyright © 1997 The Estate of Walter Martin.)
12. Why did Jesus disciples baptize? John 3:1-4
Why did Peter and the apostles teach Baptism? (Acts 2:37-47)
On both counts; they were commanded to
13. How did the Apostles confer the Holy Ghost? (Acts 8:14-19)
They did not. Every person who enters into a relationship with Jesus that is characterized by their having been redeemed has become the spiritual Temple of the Holy Ghost. This is not a matter of location or geometry, it is a matter of relationship. Paul writes the following (pay close attention to verse 9):
Romans 8:9-15
9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.
12 Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation — but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14 because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father."
However, you were probably referring to the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Every example of this happening in the book of Acts is accompanied by the remarkable manifestation of speaking in tongues. Consider the event of the experience of the household of Cornelius. Peter was astonished that they spontaneously began to manifest having received the gift of the Holy Spirit through the gift of tongues. It is not a matter of this empowerment being conferred by the Apostles, it is a matter of the individual entering a new level of relationship with the Holy Spirit accompanying empowerment.
14. Why was Matthias called to the Apostleship? (Acts 1:15-26)
Because they felt a need to help God out since one of them failed
15. Did Jesus ask us to keep his commandments?
Silly man, He commanded us to keep His commandments. What does the word command mean to you anyway?
16. How can we tell if someone loves God?
They will love one another. You cannot love God whom you have not seen if ou cannot love your brother whom you have seen.
17. If someone who is born again of God falls into sin anew and stops doing what God asks. Is he/she still saved?
Perhaps, perhaps not
18. Do you belong to a particular denomination?
Which one if yes.
COG
19. You mentioned that one candidate you like is a Calvinist? Can Calvinists be saved?
How about Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians,
Baptists, Episcopalians?
Yes if their personal faith is in the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross to redeem them from sin and they persist in this faith. Many of the people in any denomination are unaware of the detailed doctrines of their church. It is what they think of Christ that counts with God.
20. Can someone who never heard of Jesus Christ be saved? How?
No
21. Do you accept the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds as authoritative and/oe canonical?
I have never had to answer the question and have not considered it.
22. When we are married and have children are we not participating in a godlike act of creation.
Are we not multiplying and replenishing the earth?
Procreation, sometimes recreation with unintended consequences whether married or not.
I know there are a lot of questions. You don't need to go into detail but I would be interested in your answers.
Oh yes I do. The reason that I need to address some of these in detail is that you have selected these to apply well thought through, canned answers designed to mask the historic beliefs and teachings of the LDS as well as the present day confusion of terminology calculated to deceive the casual observer.
|
|
The Articles of Faith may not be available online for free but any mormon book store has it for sale for a minimal cost. Just check the deseret book website, http://www.deseretbook.com
I asked for a simple summary of your beliefs.
Are you for something or just against the Mormons?
If you only quote references as they exist in works opposing the Church of Jesus Christ and don't even bother to find the original citations I would call that sloppy scholarship.
If you are going to be an effective and long term opposer of Mormonism at least you should be familiar with their basic texts and scriptures.
The Book of Mormon is the key stone of our religion. I am very willing and able to send you a copy. As a matter of fact, the entire canon of LDS scripture is online at lds.org
Here was your chance to present your beliefs in a format where we could see where you stand.
If your beliefs are as true and beautiful as you say they should be able to stand on their own without denigrating someone elses beliefs.
|
|
Eleutheros,
You believe that the LDS church "holds all other religions in contempt", and believes itself to be the only true church.
"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where or what they may." (11th Article of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)
We believe that what we have will bring a man or woman closer to God and make them happier than any other system of worship. If they feel other wise we are perfectly content to allow them to worship as they see fit. Because what we have has brought us such peace and joy we desire others to feel the same way. But if they want to be miserable or pursue some other means of worship we have no objection, as long as they allow us the same privilege.
Now as to your argument about the veil of secrecy: Every quotation of Walter Martin that you used is taken from a book that is in the public domain. Dr. Martin sold many of his books. Is your beef with the Mormons, that we actually have the temerity to SELL our books?
The makes us SECRET? I already said that I would be happy to give you a Book of Mormon at no cost to you.
Now about question #1:
If God created everything out of nothing, as you say he did, how can he not be respnsible for evil? You say he created evil. If God didn't want evil why did he not just skip that part of the creation? Surely you think God has power to not create something. So God creates evil but he is not responsible for his creations?
God created evil but is not resposible for the wars, death, starvation, drought and disease that plague our planet?
I already explained in an earlier post that the LDS belief is that God organized our earth from pre-existing materials that are co-eternal with God. The Hebrew word "barau" or "create" in the Book of Genisis denotes organization rather than creation out of nothing.
Evil is pre-existent. God permits evil to try and test us that we may learn from our own experience the good from the evil.
As to questions 2 through 7. If you, Eleutheros, believe that Jesus has a resurrected tangible body of flesh and bone, and you are a monotheist as you claim, then, according to your answers God has a body. When I sak you if God has a body you have to separate the one into three to explain yourself. This gives me the impression that you believe there are three personages that make up the one God. I'm sorry but that just sounds so polytheistic to me. Then YOU tell me that MORMONS carefully parse THEIR answers.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes the following:
"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us."
Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Section 130 verse 22.
Joseph Smith's explanation of how this came to be
is at least as cogent as your parsing of the Godhead. I know you disagree with that. That's O.K. I allow you that privilege. Will you allow me the same? Thanks for quoting that explanation. Which is from the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pp.342-362.
Also for the third or fourth and what I hope is the last time. I repeat The LDS church does NOT believe that Adam is God the Father. You are comepletly and totally wrong in your thinking that we do. Do you not pay attention to what I write?
The purpose for Jesus showing his body to the Apostles and having them touch him was to show them what a resurrected being is like.
We also believe as does Eleutheros that Jesus was resurrected, that he had power in himself to live again and that he kept the body he resurrected with.
Eleutheros says that he believes that the Apostles had authority to act in God's name both during and after Jesus' death and resurrection. So do Mormons. However, Eleutheros said earlier that the Book of Hebrews says that Jesus is the Great High Priest and that any return to the priesthood is but a shadow of him thus making the Mormon priesthood and the Temple "Necromancy" The Apostles continued to baptize and perform other Gospel ordinances after Jesus ascension. So apparently the priesthood continues valid even after Christ's sacrifice. We would agree with that.
Eleutheros says that God has commanded us to keep his commandments. We totally agree with him.
Jesus said, "If ye love me keep my commandments." Yet when Mormons make an honest attempt to do what Jesus commanded us. Elautheros and others accuse of of believing that our works save us. And that this somehow makes us evil. My works do not save me. Jesus saves me. But I keep his commandments because he commanded me to.
One of those commandments is baptism. Jesus said, "Except a man be born of water and of the Sprit HE CANNOT ENTER THE KNIGDOM OF GOD"
Sounds like at least one work is necessary according to my God who commanded me to be baptized.
Eleutheros is not certain if someone can still be saved if they cease keeping God's commandments.
Eleutheros thinks a wide variety of denominations can be saved if "their personal faith is in the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice on the cross to redeem them from sin and they persist in this faith."
So then, apparently if they fail to persist they are not saved so if they do not persist in keeping the commandments they must not be saved. This is all a Mormon means by good works. "persisting in this faith" because as James reminds us "Faith without works is dead".
I think it's mighty charitable of Eleutheros to allow all those other folks to be saved. But see, the thing is, my "faith is in the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice on the cross to redeem (me) from sin," and I am striving to "persist in this faith" by keeping the commandments Jesus asked me to keep. But Eleutheros thinks I am damned.
The religion of Eleutheros damns all those who never heard of Christ. Eleutheros doesen't even believe in a pre-existence, so his God would cast souls down to hell who never even had the chance to hear of him! What a cruel and arbitrary God.
I don't know if I would be comfortable with a President who because of such beliefs might value the lives of the unbelievers lass then the believers.
We believe that we came here from a place where we were preexistent Spirits (See Numbers 16:22, Job 38:7, Jeremiah 1:5 Zechariah 12:1,Hebrews 12:9. God was the Father of our Spirits. Heb 12:9
We believe that we are here to be tested. to learn to prize the good by experiencing good and evil. We are also here to gain a body, like Jesus did. We believe because Jesus died all men will be resurrected. "For as in Adam all die even so in Christ shall all be made alive." I Cor 15:22. We believe that we are saved by the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice for us. We believe him when he tells us to keep his commandments because we love him and we do not wish to fall from his grace.
When we die we believe that we return to the world of Spirits to await the resurrection. We believe that those who did not hear the gospel here will have that chance there.
"For Christ hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but being quickened by the Spirit:
By which also he went and preached to the spirits in prison:
Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few that is eight souls were saved by water."
I Peter 4:18-20
We then believe that the ordinances that they were unable to receive because they never heard of Jesus while on the earth can be performed by proxy. "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?"
I Cor 15:29
The God I believe in makes ample provision for all his children to hear and accept the gospel and be saved.
When we are resurrected as Jesus was, those who believed in him and kept his commandments will dwell with him and the Father. They will be like him. "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments IS A LIAR, and the truth is not in him." I John 2:4
"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that when he shall appear , we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is."
Romans 8:17 "The spirit itself beareth witness with our Spirit, that we are the children of God. And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if it so be we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified together." Romans 8:16-17 "to him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne" Revelation 3:21
As to the creeds. Consider it. The concepts God that you describe as your beliefs are there in those creeds. I do not find them in the Bible. But they have colored the beliefs of Orthodox Christianity.
Procreation: the bringing into the world life, is sacred. Truly, many people profane it and use it in vain. They will have to answer to God for their conduct. Nevertheless, We create children and people the planet. We believe that these family associations can endure. I heard Pat Robertson, on the 700 Club, the other day, tell a man who had lost his wife, that he and she and their children would be together after this life. So apparently some Christians believe in eternal families.
Excuse me if I detect some "canned answers" of your own.
Eleutheros, I was in the Temple over the weekend and I attended church. I know what was done there was good. I know it was true. I know it was what God wanted me to do. I love him and I will continue to try to keep all his commandments. He saved me. I worship his holy name. I also pray for you, my friend. I pray for you every day, ever since I began writng to you. I pray for you joy and peace.
Daddy o |
|
Euleutheros,
What gives your views and explanations more weight than those of my church? Why should I view them as more authoritative?
How did you recieve authority to speak in behalf of God, or to define him in the way that you do?
If you claim the Bible as authority that is not good enough. There are as many variations of doctrine in the various Christian churches as there are churches. They all claim the Bible as their scripture. Yet they interpret it in so many different ways. How are you certain that your way is the right way. How are you certain that others are wrong?
If you say that there are more who believe your way than mine, I would say that There are more non-Christians in the world than Christians. Jesus was considered the leader of a cult on the fringe of Judaism by many of his peers. Mainstream orthodox Judaism condemned both he and his followers. They said he did the works he did by the power of the devil.
No, I need to see something that shows your authority to state true doctrine before I could accept anything you say.
|
|
Wow, three posts in a row.
We have a few things in common. We are both deeply committed to a system of faith. But there are vast differences between us. I am impressed that you have not shaken the dust from your feet yet.
Sloppy scholarship? You asked me for a simple summary of my beliefs? I have been giving you examples and statements of my beliefs from the very first post. Buy your fiction, actually spend money on it? How contemptuous, we are talking about an ongoing overnight dialog and I am not your student taking a test. If your leadership were not working so hard to hide the original sources from the general public, it would be available for free on line through the Gutenberg Project, the copyrights to the Articles of Faith (Talmage) should be in the public domain by now. They are too important to the defense of your claims of legitimacy to be hidden away. Your whole system of faith depends on a pedigree of prophetic statements and divine revelations to your apostles and prophets. Many of which have been edited, altered, revised, corrected and some even abandoned even tough they were supposed to be “the word of the Lord.”
Getting a copy of the book of Mormon is not a problem, thanks anyway. We both know that this is just the starting point anyway, there are numerous other works that have authority in your system of faith and there are others that have fallen from favor as your organizations have evolved to adapt to criticism. Your belief in a continuous, ongoing formulation of doctrine and divine revelation makes criticism depend on the interpretation dejour. I was quite aware that the Adam-god doctrine has evolved in the fine points over time. But the belief in more than one god (polytheism) is a cornerstone of your faith system, and that was one of my points. You fully expect to become a god yourself. You didn’t get this idea from the Bible.
You accuse me of denigrating your faith, yet you close the door of the Temple in my face. We, every non-Mormon, are locked out. Your analogy comparing the Temple to the marriage bed was not only condescending and crass, it was insane. There is no NT precedent for it. If you think there is a parallel between the “sanctity” of your Temple and the Temple in the wilderness with its Holy of Holies, I am willing to test this theory. In the OT, those who profaned the holy of holies died. Want to run a little test? I doubt it? To risky, you just might fail.
I have no ambition to become a critic of Mormonism. This expedition has been an anomaly and my time and energy are devoted to teaching the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. I do not pretend to be offended and cry out as an innocent who had been injured as you just did. You do not give “the chance to present my views.” I used your willingness to engage in dialog to put your heresy on display. If you feel that I have been denigrating your beliefs, it is because they cannot be juxtaposed with Biblical Christianity and its tenants without exposing how bazaar Mormonism and its history is. That is not my fault pal.
Now let’s see if you are really interested in what I believe and how I came by those beliefs. Or was your list of questions just a set-up to walk me through your canned presentation of “how to respond to the orthodox Christian critique.
I came to my system of faith in a simple manner. I was living a bohemian life without regard to moral constraints. A coworker challenged me to read a New Testament that he gave me. I had been defending my lascivious life style claiming that God could not have create evil, therefore, (sound familiar) the sinful behavior I enjoyed was nothing more than enjoying God’s creation. I accepted his challenge thinking I would be able to build better arguments if I knew what was in the book. You know, rebellion, self initiated and not something God is responsible for, even though I am His creation. He gave each of us the power to choose.
After reading three of the Gospels and getting about half way through the Gospel of John, I came under conviction and without instruction or influence from anyone, while standing in the woods by myself on a deer hunt, without knowing it; I followed the prescription in Romans 10:8-11
8 But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11 As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." NIV
That moment marked the exact time that I entered into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I didn’t have any expectation of what followed, but I was demonstrably a new person. I continued to read the scriptures and with the instruction of the Holy Spirit, my knowledge of the scriptures grew. Precept upon precept, line by line, the word of God revealed God, His nature and His plan to me. I sought out fellowship of people who had the same respect for the Word as I did. My system of belief was not built around any special revelation, it did not need to be defended, and there was no secrecy, no suggestion of super-spiritual knowledge or extra-biblical sources. I don’t think you can say the same thing.
Your system of belief depends on extra-biblical revelation. The requirements of your system of faith have a pedigree that is traced through the priesthoods of Melchizedek and Aaron as defined by Joseph Smith. Your twist on the scriptures which you have received from super-spiritual knowledge and extra-biblical sources requires performance of rituals, justification through works and righteousness resulting from obedience to the commandments. As I understand your use of the word commandment, it is associated with the Mosaic law(s) and covenants.
The Bible teaches an entirely different relationship between the redeemed and the Commandments given to Israel. Let’s start with what Jesus said to His disciples.
John 13:34
34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. NIV
John 14:15
15 "If you love me, you will obey what I command. NIV
John 14:21
21 Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."
NIV
John 15:9-15
9 "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. 11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. NIV
And now for how Paul applied this.
Romans 7:8-13
8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.
13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.
NIV
Paul makes the case that God’s purpose in the law was to demonstrate the inability of man to produce righteousness in himself through his efforts to obey the law. These efforts led to death, not life. SO, how are we to understand the words of Jesus in this light? Paul does not leave us hanging, he tells us how.
Romans 13:9
9 The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." NIV
1 Timothy 1:5
5 The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. NIV
Galatians 5:1-6
1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
NIV
Galatians 5:14
14 The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." NIV
James adds to this:
James 2:8-11
8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11 For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. NIV
And the author of Hebrews;
Hebrews 7:18
18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless NIV
John, who was there that evening when Jesus gave His teaching nails it down with his letters:
1 John 3:23
23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. NIV
1 John 5:1-5
1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. 2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3 This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, 4 for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. 5 Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.
NIV
So, the OT commandments frustrate our efforts to achieve righteousness and demonstrate our inability to overcome sin, producing death and not life. The old regulation (law) has been set aside. Those who attempt to achieve righteousness through the law, come under the obligation to the whole law. Christ becomes of no value to them. They are fallen from grace. The only thing that counts is faith expressed through love. Jesus gave a new commandment, that we have love, for the Father and for each other. The commandment Jesus has given is not burdensome. Yet the law given to Moses is nothing but burdensome. Love is the hallmark of the believer.
Jeremiah the prophet foretold the replacement of the OT covenant (diatheke) with the NT covenant (diatheke).
Jeremiah 31:31-34
31 "The time is coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the Lord. 33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the Lord. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the Lord. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." NIV
You want me to believe that I should take up the obligations of keeping the law that Jesus died to bring to an end.
Colossians 2:13-15
13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. NIV
He nailed all of that to the cross. The priesthood is dead, he purposefully killed it. He did not perpetuate it, or empower the disciples to continue it. They did not receive any instructions to do so, did not make any attempt to do so, after a short period of time, they even abandoned the Temple and all of their participation in Temple service. They did not build a new Temple and they were not asked to.
You cannot love and violate the commandments that were embodied in the law and the covenants. We know from the scriptures, the lesson taught through the universal failure of mankind to keep the law successfully, it cannot be done. Your efforts to keep the law for the law’s sake are futile. It is not your desire to be righteous that is at fault. It is your belief that those efforts to keep the law lead to the approval of God resulting in of justification, that constitute heresy and bring the condemnation of God.
Romans 3:19-20
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. NIV
Romans 4:3
3 What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." NIV
|
|
Daddy O,
I hope you're still around to read this; mea culpa, mea culpa. Please substitute the word "inane" where I typed "insane." |
|
got it, inane, not insane.
more later |
|
My dear friend Eleutheros,
Why would I shake the dust from my feet? You don't know or understand enough of my beliefs to make an informed judgement. I am not making a judgement here. I am stating a fact.
Actually, I believe your "very first post" was a lurid description of Joseph Smith recieving revelations from a "golden salamander". Since I don't think your own beliefs don't have a golden salamander in them, and since the only mention of a golden salamander connected with Joseph Smith was contained in a forged letter faked by certain Mark Hoffman, who murdered two people to cover up his forgery asnd eventually nearly killed himself when a bomb he was carrying in his car went off prematurely, I would say that you are definitely not up on the latest anti-mormon rhetoric, much less on genuine Mormon doctrine. So you were not telling me how wonderful your religion was in the first post. You were telling everybody how weird and rotten Mormonism was.
I would think if you went to any reputable library and asked for a copy of the Articles of Faith by James E. Talmadge, they could find you a copy on the interlibrary loan system. Of course, maybe "my fiction" ins't worth the trouble. You would rather quote from anti-Mormon sources as they are safer.
If, however, you are brave enough to explore the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints here are a few a many online resources so you don't even have to go out of the house or darken the door of Deseret Book:
http://www.lds.org The official website of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
http://www.mormon.org faq website for the church
http://www.fairlds.org a group of very intelliegent mormon types take to task your anti-mormon literature
http://scriptures.byu.edu/ a database that references all mentions of the LDS standard works, Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price, in the general Conferences of the church by apostles and other general offices of the church since 1972. Pre '72 has scriptures quoted but you cannot pull the talks themselves.
http://scripturesbeta.byu/jod/jod-html.php
The entire Journal of Discourses containing all the talks and discourses of the church's prophets and apostles during most of the 19th century.
Certainly looks like we're hiding lots of information to be. But , of course, you know all about us Mormons, very secretive, very sneaky.
As to the Temple. It is a sacred place. It is a Holy place. I have made covenants not to discuss the specifics of the Temple Endowment outside the temple. I keep my covenants and I take them very seriously. I follow the Savior's injunction as found in Matthew 7:6
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, less they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."
When I see the absolute falsehoods that are put forth as Mormon doctrine, and the ridicule that is made at the expense of so many things I hold sacred it almost brings tears to my eyes.
When I tried to explain this to you in the best, most thoughtful way I could find, so that you would not be offended, this was your reaction:
"To continue with your metaphor of the husband and the wife. There is not need to apologize for the use of this relationship to illustrate your thinking. Paul told us in Ephesians that God created this relationship for the express purpose of revealing the divine mystery of the relationship between the church and Christ."
Now, in your last post, you said the following:
"Your analogy comparing the temple to the marriage bed was not only condescending and crass, it was (inane)."
In the Temple, we explore the very mystery of the relationship between the Church and Christ.
Perhaps you think that Paul was crass, condescending and inane to use the same metaphor.
As you have already stated. You are aware that various apostate mormons and anti-mormons have put the entire endowment in books and on-line for public view. If you are so dead set on seeing what goes on, go there and look. That doesn't destroy my covenant with God anymore than if someone unknown to me had a peephole in my bedroom. My relationship with my wife would remain sacred to me and to her. It would only reflect shame and ridicule on the peeping tom.
It doesn't matter whether you know what goes on in the temple. It does matter that I keep my promise to God.
As I said, before. Any person who is willing to pay the price to go up to the house of the Lord, may do so. OF COURSE, they would have to come to a knowledge and belief that the true and living gospel of our Lord, Jesus Christ is fould there. OF COURSE they would be baptized by immersion by one holding the authority to do so. They would also keep the commandments of God to qualify for a valid temple recommend. They would have a testimony of the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel. They would know the God speaks to Prophets today just as anciently. They would pay tithing, and keep the sabbath day holy and keep the other of the ten commandments as God asked them to.
If you don't want to do that, fine. I'm not forcing you. But realize that it is not me or any Mormon keeping you from the temple. You are keeping you from the temple. And if it's all "condescending, crass and inane anyway why are you so put out?
If you go to the fairlds website that I listed you will find much research that shows that first century christianity and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints resemble each other much more closely than Orthodox Christianity. You will see solid scholarship demonstrating the apostasy that occured as the doctrine of the original church was "hellenized" after the death of the apostles. An apostasy of which they prophesied. Indeed my own personal study, (and it has been extensive) shows every doctrine that I find in Mormonism. This includes man becoming a joint heir with Jesus Christ and sitting with him on his Father's throne. If that is blasphemous than John the Beloved was a blasphemer. Revelations 3:21
I am very happy for you that you found the Savior, Jesus Christ and entered into a personal relationship with him. I believe you when you say that the word of God revealed Christ to you.
But, don't you see, that is the very point.
God revealed to you in your heart that Jesus is your Savior. That, by it's very nature is extra-biblical. If it stayed in the Bible you wouldn't have it. But God took it from the Bible and put it into your heart. God spoke to you. You knew there was a relationship that had not been there before.
Let me tell you how God spoke to me through the word of God.
My parents were Mormons. They were active in the church. They taught me to believe in the doctrines of the church. But as I became a young man, I began to question. I reason thus: My parents are wonderful people, but they are after all fallable human beings. Just because they say something is so, doesn't mean it is so.
I had many friends who were not of my faith. They and I had many discussions and I realized there were many ways of believing. Maybe there was one that was better than mine.
I studied the Bible, and I studied the Book of Mormon and the other scriptures of the Church.
I was looking to see if there were places where they were inconsistent. There were a few places that first look like they might be, but the more I studied the less inconsistency I found.
With all this I still did not know if what I had been taught as a child was, in fact, true. I was preparing to serve a mission for the church. It troubled me that I did not know. I decided that if I did not know by the time I recieved my call to serve a mission that I would not go, because I could not teach what I did not know was true. That would be a lie.
One Sunday afternoon I was reading and I found this quotation: "Be thou humble, and the Lord Thy God shall lead thee by the hand and give thee answer to thy prayers." I began to weep. Big tears ran down my cheeks. At that very moment I entered into a relationship with Jesus Christ. That relationship has only strengthened and deepened with the years.
I know that God lives. I know that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God. I know that they came down from the midst of heaven and spoke to the boy, Joseph Smith. I know it as surely as if I had been there in the woods beside him. I know that he was chosen to be a Prophet. I know that the Priesthood is not dead. I know that power to serve God and our fellow men is once more restore to the earth.
I love the Bible. I love Peter and Paul and John. I love their teachings. They continued to use the power and priesthood God had given them after he ascended to heaven.
"Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.
And a certain man ame from his mother's womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple;
Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple asked an alms.
And Peter fastening his eyes upon him with John, said, Look on us.
And he gave heed unto them expecting to recieve something of them.
Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.
And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones recieved strength.
And he leaping up stood, and walked, entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God." Acts 3:1-8
Peter had power in Christ Jesus. The Savior delegated the power to act in his name.
Note: Peter said: "that which I have"
Your experience was a wonderful first step. Jesus is calling you. There is more. He has led you line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. You are a very good person. You are a sinner. So am I. So are we all. I don't think it is a cooincidence that you have come to this place to have this conversation with me.
I challenge you to read all you can about this doctrine. It's all listed for you on-line.
Perhaps you will read it thinking to build better arguments against it. You will find that it will strengthen your faith in God and the Bible. You will find yourself learning things that you had not thought of when you read the Bible.
You will learn, for instance, that when Paul talks of the Law being dead, he is referring to the Law of Moses. The schoolmaster imposed on rebellious Israel after they rejected the higher law, when they worshipped the golden calf. And Moses cast down the higher law and broke it in pieces.
If all priesthood was done away by Jesus death and sacrifice and resurrection and ascension into heaven, the Apostles would have immediately ceased to function as such. But they did not.
Jesus said unto his Apostles, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to evey creature. He that believeth and is BAPTIZED shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:15-16
"And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen." Mark 16:20
Today the living Apostles, having the same power as did Peter and John have sent the gospel into all the world. I say unto you Eleutheros, as Peter said on the day of Pentecost:
"Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost.
For the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Acts 2:38-39
Then may it be said of you as it was of them:
"Then they that gladly recieved his word were baptized...and they continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers...And they continued daily with one accord in the TEMPLE..."
Acts 2:41,42, & 46
Isaiah Chap 2 verses 2-3
"And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem."
Come Eleutheros, If I did not love you, I would not be so bold as to offer you what I have. "Silver and Gold have I none, but such as I have, give I unto thee, in the name if Jesus Christ of Nazareth" awake and arise to all of the gospel.
"
|
|
Daddy O,
Weird? Why would the salamander story be more weird than the Angel Maroni story? Or the indefensible past of Joseph Smith where it is documented that he engaged in treasure hunting using “peep stones” and other superstitions. Why would the actions of Mark Hoffman have any impact at all, except for the fact that Mormonism depends entirely on extra-biblical revelation and super-spiritual knowledge in the possession of a few unquestioned leaders, even today?
If God instructed the Mormons to discriminate against Blacks and bar them from the Temple, as your prophets maintained all the way up until the time of the American civil rights movement made it too uncomfortable to do so. Before that, black men and women were condemned under the curse of Cain according to your doctrines. Then suddenly, God gives a new revelation, in the secrecy of the priesthood, a single leader with divine authority overturns the whole history of the Mormon church. Now blacks can come in and they don’t have to wait it out as generations of white men pass them by in the evolution towards godhood (as you believe).What prevents a similar but perhaps more sinister reversal in God’s will (as seen by a Mormon President) from being manifest among your leadership the day after the inauguration day for a Mormon President of the United States?
Which one of those informative sites you listed provides an unedited copy of Articles of Faith (Talmadge)? I can get hard copies from a number of places, even ebay has copies for sale. What I cannot do, is get it on line, even from the Mormons. This is very important for me to address the question of the Father God became Adam argument. Over and over you correctly make the point that Mormonism does not believe this idea about the nature of God, leaving out the word “today.” You disingenuously avoid admitting that it was one of those cornerstones of the truth revealed to your early church leaders and their special revealed knowledge of truth made it important to throw away all Christian orthodoxy and embrace the revelations flowing from the soothsayer Smith. You are aware that Talmade embraced this now discarded doctrine and published it in Articles of Faith and this was an important Mormon publication. His contemporaries, you forefathers, looked to him as a great teacher of Mormon truth.
In my church, a great teacher is just that and no more. In your church, they are prophets and apostles with a direct pipeline to god. When one of my teachers says they have a revelation from God, I (we) test it against the context of the Bible. If it is in contradiction or does not harmonize, we politely correct them and they are accordingly discredited. In your church, the Bible is not accepted as sufficient, it requires the book of Mormon to be interpreted, and other extra-biblical sources as well. All of which, Mormons have taken great liberty in editing, revising and deleting from. There is no legitimate comparison with modern translations of the Bible because we do not claim to have translated any of those text with the aid of divinely provided spectacles (Urim and Thummin) that miraculously enable Smith to translate it form the so called ancient languages. Smith wrote in “The Pearl of Great Price”
“I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them. ... Mr. Martin Harris came to our place, got the characters which I had drawn off the plates, and started with them to the city of New York. For what took place relative to him and the characters, I refer to his own account of the circumstances, as he related them to me after his return, which was as follows: "I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters that had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters."
Professor Anthon denied this account and the authenticity of the artifacts presented to him in a letter he published on 14 February, 1934. In this letter, he stated, “The whole story about my having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be "reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics" is perfectly false.’ “Upon examining the paper in question, I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a trick, perhaps a hoax. When I asked the person who brought it how he obtained the writing he gave me, as far as I can now recollect, [he gave] the following account: A "gold book," consisting of a number of plates of gold, fastened together in the shape of a book by wires of the same metal, had been dug up in the northern part of the state of New York, and along with the book an enormous pair of "gold spectacles.”
Professor Anthon explained that he became alarmed for Harris when Harris explained that he was considering selling his farm to support the publication of this (Book of Mormon) and Anthon writes “On hearing this odd story, I changed my opinion about the paper, and, instead of viewing it any longer as a hoax upon the learned, I began to regard it as a part of a scheme to cheat the farmer of his money, and I communicated my suspicions to him, warning him to beware of rogues.”
You my friend Daddy O, have done more than sell the farm, you have entrusted your soul to this hoax. I know that I am challenging a lifetime commitment, but eternity is more important and your soul is too precious to simply make a drive-by attack.
Thank you for putting my two statements side by side. You are reading some of what I have written after all. In the first instance, there was and still is no need to apologize. In the second instance, your analogy, in my opinion, is inane. The reason is, your analogy has no commonality at all with what Paul told us about his design and purpose for the intimacy of the marriage relationship. You use the metaphor to advance ideas that are exactly the opposite of that which was in Paul’s letters. Paul explained that he was discussing a truth that had been a great mystery before the emergence of the Church (not a building, rather the body of Christ comprised of all believers.) The mystery was the character of the church and its relationship to God. In particular, the Church, unlike Israel, was not limited to Jews (by blood) and the Church has as its head, Jesus Christ. In this relationship, the Church subordinates itself in service and Christ sacrifices Himself in service. Both lay aside any claims of rights, privilege or power in mutual care and love. Both spend themselves in the “ministry of reconciliation.”
Ephesians 3:6
6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
NIV
Ephesians 3:9
9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. NIV
Ephesians 5:32
32 This is a profound mystery — but I am talking about Christ and the church. NIV
Colossians 1:26-27
26 the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. 27 To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. NIV
2 Corinthians 5:19-20
19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. NIV
Now, what makes your analogy inane? You use the intimacy and privacy of the marriage relationship as an example of why the doors to the Temple should be closed to uninitiated non-Mormons. Nothing could be more foreign to God’s mystery revealed; the things Paul was talking about. He was saying that the Temple, which existed to provide fallen man an approach to God under Israel, and it was closed to the gentiles. Even Israel was required to resort to the agency of the priest under the law to make this approach to God. The Church, which is the Temple of God after the resurrection of Christ, is open to all nations. There is no secrecy in the Church. There is no need for the shadow cast by the priesthood. There is no racial discrimination in the Church. There are no social or economic barriers in the Church.
Hebrews 10:1
1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming — not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. NIV
Ephesians 2:11-19
11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, NIV
The priesthood of the Church has merged the role of advocate with the role of the monarch and we (the Church) are called a royal priesthood. But rather than locking God up behind the veil closing off the Holy of Holies, that veil has been torn in-two by divine intervention. The priesthood (of the Church) takes the presence of God out of the edifice of the Temple and into the community of man. This is why Paul writes:
1 Corinthians 6:19
19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; NIV
2 Corinthians 6:16
16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." NIV
In several instances of your posts, you have argued sincerely that you have the better tone, and that you are not judgmental of other religions. In your last you say this:
>“As to the Temple. It is a sacred place. It is a Holy place. I have made covenants not to >discuss the specifics of the Temple Endowment outside the temple. I keep my covenants and >I take them very seriously. I follow the Savior's injunction as found in Matthew 7:6
>"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, less >they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."
This blindness of yours is profound. You cannot see that your tone is condescending and judgmental. Your belief system perverts the Gospel by taking the verses that follow the passage I quoted above to justify your exclusivity (Eph 2:20). Saying that only the Mormon’s have the apostles and prophets. If you are right about excluding the uninitiated from the Temple, you must admit that until recently, one of those qualifications was that you also had to be a white man. This came by one of your divine revelations. Now tell me how that lines up with what Paul had to say about the “mystery” of the Church and the tearing down of the barriers that separated men before Christ.
Here is another blind spot that you have: You equate my new birth experience with an extra-biblical revelation. An extra-biblical revelation is a revelation that stands on its own, is not supported by the Bible, is not required to harmonize with the Bible, may even contradict the Bible. The Book of Mormon is an extra Biblical revelation. The pronouncements of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and numerous other apostles and prophets of the Mormon following are extra-Biblical revelations. The new birth experience does not fit this description. In the Pentecostal movement (I am Pentecostal,) there are people who receive interpretations and prophecy. Their pronouncements are subject to comparison to the Bible (or should be). The discipline requires that their words be consistent with the Bible. This prevents the emergence of extra-Biblical revelation.
The danger of extra-Biblical sources is that they represent knowledge held by a small group or a single person. Both Paul and John battled against this problem when it was manifest in the Gnostic movement. I see elements of Gnosticism in the Mormon belief system. The Bible asserts that the revelation of the mysteries of God were complete in it. Yet you want me to believe that this vast array of new “truth” was not revealed until the soothsayer Smith was given his gold plates and the Urim and Thummin.
Romans 16:25-26
25 Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26 but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him— NIV
You assert that Peter and John continued to act as priest. Where were the sacrifices, where was the alter. You emphasize the need to keep the Sabbath to earn the privilege of entering the temple. Paul wrote that the church was to not permit men to judge them on the basis of these legal formalities:
Colossians 2:16-17
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. NIV
I contend that the early Church learned under Paul’s leadership and reluctantly (at first) Peter’s leadership, that they were not bound to attend to the rituals and disciplines of Mosaic law. Paul passionately pleaded with the church at Galatia to reject both the legalism of the Judaizers and the super-spiritual extra-Biblical corruptions of the Gospel offered by the Gostics.
Galatians 1:6-9
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! NIV
Galatians 3:1-5
1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4 Have you suffered so much for nothing — if it really was for nothing? 5 Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard? NIV
Galatians 5:1-5
1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. NIV
My screen name is Eleutheros. It means “freeman” I am free from the law. I am free from judgment. I am free from the power of sin. I am free from the power of death. I have become by choice, the bondservant of Christ.
Galatians 5:13-14
13 You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. 14 The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
I offer to you this same freedom. Renounce your reliance on works and acknowledge that Christ offering of his body, blood and life on Calvary’s tree is sufficient and salvation comes from simple faith in this and His resurrection. Accept that righteousness is His credited to your account and manifest because of His love expressed in your life choices empowered by His Spirit and guided by is Word.
|
|
If you can't even spell Moroni right you show your lack of depth of knowledge concerning the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
If reading the Bible is the only Authority for what you say, than any one of a hundred different religions and sects that subscribe to the Bible have equal claim on the truth.
I have quoted scripture after scripture from the Bible supporting the doctrine of Revelation through Prophets.
You will say that your interpretation of the Bible shows no such thing. Yet based on a reading of the Bible you have no more validity than I do.
Jesus brought forth new revelation. He was hated and persecuted for it. The Orthodox Jews interpreted the First five books of Moses and the Prophets to say that there could be no new revelation.
My friend, you believe that the Bible IS God.
Just as the Jews clung to the Law of Moses.
You say that you changed your life when your personal relationship with Christ began. If works are not valid or necessary why didn't you just continue the life style you had?
I have explained over and over that my works do not save me. Jesus Christ saves me. And the Bible quotes Jesus as saying "If ye love me, keep my Commandments. I love him and I will.
You know nothing about Joseph Smith. You in absolute ignorance damn and blacken his name.
There is another scripture in the Bible that says, "Judge not that ye be not judged."
Jesus told his disciples that if they persecuted him they would surely persecute the disciples.
You never did tell me if you were baptized. I guess all those Bible scriptures are just interpreted by you to be invalid.
It seems that you quote Paul more than the Savior. And I have rarely seen you quote from the Old Testament. Your scope of scripture seems narrow.
I have a copy of the Articles of Faith, by James E. Talmadge. It has no Adam God doctrine in it.
You are obsessed by this aren't you. You are so sure that you know all about my church because you have read a few Anti-Mormon works.
How sad.
|
|
The Book of Mormon does not contradict the Bible, anymore than the New Testament contradicts the Old Testament. The Bible and the Book of Mormon complement each other, they bear witness of the God of Heaven and his Son Jesus Christ.
There are only two books in the World that contain the same challenge:
In the Bible:
"If any of you lack wisdom let him ask of God that giveth liberally and upbraideth not and it shall be given him." James 1:5
In the Book of Mormon:
"And when ye recieve these things I would exhort you that you would ask God, the Eternal Father in the name of Christ if these things are not true. And if ye ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost, and by the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."
I know the Bible is true because I asked, as God counsels me to do in the Bible. He has answered my prayers. I know the Bible is the word of God.
I know the Book of Mormon is true because I asked, as God counsels me to do in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon. He has answered my prayers. I know the Book of Mormon is the word of God.
Free men do not fear the truth. Free men love all the truth. Free men do not rely upon the testimony of others. They seek knowledge from the source. A free man would not ridicule what another man considers sacred and holy.
I have read book after book about Joseph Smith. I have read Dr. Martin's book and Fawn Brodie' book and many of the other anti-mormon books. They are small minded, bitter and thrive on rumor, half truth and innuendo. I have read both sides of the issue. I have studied, and pondered and prayed. I have read the Bible many times, from cover to cover. I have read the book of Mormon many times, from cover to cover.
I have asked God to answer my questions and he has.
You have not read the Moromon side of the question because you are not interested in the truth. You view it as garbage. You have nothing but scorn for it. That is your privilege. But don't even pretent to tell me what is true, until you have studied both sides of the matter, and asked God the Father, in the name of Jeus Christ if this is true.
I believe in the voice of the living God, not in the voice of man. |
|
Daddy O
OK, I failed your spelling test. But you failed the reading comprehension test! It amazing how many misrepresentations of the things I have written to you, I will try to correct your impression of my meaning. I have a few moments between accomplishing some “honey-do’s” for my dear wife, and I will give them to you.
I respect the scope and depth of your investigations and I appreciate the time you have taken to correspond with me. But I am wondering if your inability to comprehend and recall the simple things I have written to you is an indication of how you have used the things you have read over the years. I will show you what I mean, because I do not wish to insult you with this criticism.
Now, I will give some examples of where you have failed to notice or comprehend what I have written.
>You say that you changed your life when your personal relationship with Christ began.
I did not say that. I did describe the unexpected changes that occurred in my behavior, but I made no claim to having the power or even attempting to change my life. The change that came into my life was the product of dieing to the world and being raised by the power of the Holy Spirit entering into union with me after being born again. This is a long passage, but is vital to understand what I believe to be the power to live the life of Christ and is the key to keeping His commandments, not as a means of justification, but as fruit of righteousness. I will emphasis by using CAPS.
Romans 8:1-14
1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4 IN ORDER THAT THE RIGHTEOUS REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW MIGHT BE FULLY MET IN US, WHO DO NOT LIVE ACCORDING TO THE SINFUL NATURE BUT ACCORDING TO THE SPIRIT.
5 Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
9 YOU, HOWEVER, ARE CONTROLLED NOT BY THE SINFUL NATURE BUT BY THE SPIRIT, IF THE SPIRIT OF GOD LIVES IN YOU. AND IF ANYONE DOES NOT HAVE THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST, HE DOES NOT BELONG TO CHRIST. 10 BUT IF CHRIST IS IN YOU, YOUR BODY IS DEAD BECAUSE OF SIN, YET YOUR SPIRIT IS ALIVE BECAUSE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.
12 Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation — but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14 because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. NIV
No Daddy O, I did not changed my behavior, His Spirit changed my behavior. The works that are manifest in my life are the product of His Spirit ruling in my life as it breaths life in me.
Titus 3:5
5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, NIV
> You know nothing about Joseph Smith. You in absolute ignorance damn and blacken his > > > name.
I truly believe you have read substantially more about Joseph Smith than I have. But I maintain that you KNOW nothing about him either. Both of us are relying on the writings of those who did know him and others that have performed critical research of his life and claims. Your defensiveness and eagerness to make assumptions and judgments about what I know is interesting. These exchanges are casual and not scholarly. If it were so, you would see something very different from me. I am not making a boast, only trying to show you how your spurious assumptions can miss the mark. I have published, professional and hobby articles in national publications. I have graduated from three post graduate schools with rigorous research and writing requirements. I hold four professional certifications in different fields. Again, not a boast, I am making the point that you should not judge my abilities on the basis of a casual interlocutory.
It is also interesting that you scold me with the words of Jesus, “Judge not…” I take this issue very seriously. Enough so that I have considered the subject in the whole context and compared it to other related passages. Let’s have a look at the whole passage, because it says much more than you have used it to say.
Matthew 7:1-5
1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. NIV
Notice that Jesus coupled a warning to the admonition. The warning is that God will hold us accountable to the same standards that we hold others to. There is also instruction for how to proceed when it is necessary for us to make judgments. We are to clean-up our own act before we engage in making decisions about others. The letters and the book of Acts are filled with discussion of the early Church having to make judgments and there are commands to the Christians to make judgments about who they fellowship with and how they should regard them. The Corinthians church was sternly rebuked because they failed to make judgments based on the conduct of people in their fellowship.
1 Corinthians 5:1-7
1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? 3 Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. 4 When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.
6 Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast — as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. NIV
So then, how do I believe the passage you used should apply to me? I believe that I am warned against petty censorious behavior towards others. I believe I am warned against assuming motives and merits for only God can see the heart of a man. I believe I am to follow the steps of Jesus, preferring to forgive those who offend me, to have mercy and to show grace. Does that mean I am to overlook error or false teaching? It depends. In Romans 14 through 15 Paul explains that it is sometimes necessary to refrain from censuring others in order to redeem them from their error, even if it calls for sacrifice on my part. But, from time-to-time, it is necessary to deal with error.
Titus 3:8-11
8 This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.
9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. 11 You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned. NIV
As far as allowing him to influence my thinking, my life or those who God has placed in my charge as a teacher, I have pretty much made up my mind about Joseph Smith. I believe God requires this of me since Smith has denounced Christian orthodoxy and makes the claim that he is in possession of special revelation that came to no other man. Why should I give his claim more attention than Ellen G. White’s, or Charles Taz Russell’s, or Mary Baker Eddy’s, my it was a busy century as each of these people claimed to have received an extra-Biblical revelation, rejecting Christian orthodoxy. Each of them started their own denomination with exclusive claims on revelation. I will admit that Smith’s stands out in the pack as the most bazaar.
> You never did tell me if you were baptized. I guess all those Bible scriptures are just > interpreted by you to be invalid.
You asked if I was baptized, the answer is yes. But not out of a motive to keep some law or meet some obligation. I was eager to follow Him in baptism as it demonstrated to the world that I had realized the spiritual reality that I had died to the world and sin and He had raised me up and given me newness of life. You don’t seem to have any problem judging, even to the point of judging motives.
> It seems that you quote Paul more than the Savior. And I have rarely seen you quote from > the Old Testament. Your scope of scripture seems narrow.
Are we keeping score? What happen to that “better tone” you boasted of earlier? I have quoted the passages I though most appropriate to the issues before us. The scope and depth of what I have presented to you has been measured against what I believe to be your need. Given a different forum and a different relationship, I would be pleased to have you in one of my discipleship programs. The most recent program I have designed and taught starts with a survey of the Bible using Graham Scroggie’s Unfolding Drama of Redemption to take you from beginning to end. Secondly we would progress to Doctrines of the Bible by Merle S Pearlman, a small but meaty work of sound doctrine. The third step would be a study of the contemporaries and culture of Jesus’ time based on Alfred Eidersheim’s Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Next a course on the founding of the early church and the text I use for this course is the Life and Epistles of St. Paul by Conybeare and Howson. The wrap up is a course in Biblical eschatology founded on Things to Come by Dwight Pentecost. This program takes two years and is taught in seminar with an expectation of post graduate work on the part of the participants. But my dear friend Daddy O, this has been a casual exchange. Please do not be offended, but you must know that I consider you to be engaged in faith system that has locked you into thinking that is based in error. Just as you think I am. Consequently, I must lay again foundations that should already be in place.
Hebrews 5:11-14
11 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. 12 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil. NIV
> have a copy of the Articles of Faith, by James E. Talmadge. It has no Adam God >doctrine in it. You are obsessed by this aren't you. You are so sure that you know all >about my church because you have read a few Anti-Mormon works.
Sigh….My complaint has been from the beginning that you assert that the Mormons do not believe that Adam is God, but you do not acknowledge that this was AT ONETIME part of the belief system and part of your doctrine that leads to the conclusion that all men are progressing towards godhood. I wanted to check Talmadge out because he is apparently responsible for much of the clarification and refinement of Mormon doctrine on the nature of God. I may have missed it, but I have not seen you respond to the central issue. I could site other quotes besides Talmadge such as this extract from Martin’s book. Have at it:
“Historically this doctrine of Adam-God was hard for even faithful Mormons to believe. As a result, on June 8, 1873, Brigham Young stated: "How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me — namely that Adam is our father and God.
" 'Well,' says one, 'Why was Adam called Adam?' He was the first man on the earth, and its framer and maker. He with the help of his brethren brought it into existence. Then he said, 'I want my children who are in the spirit world to come and live here. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state. I was faithful, I received my crown and exaltation' "(Deseret News, June 18, 1873, 308). (from Kingdom of the Cults, Copyright © 1997 The Estate of Walter Martin.)
Maybe this time you will answer to the point. How and why did Mormons discard this belief? If in fact they have.
>You have not read the Moromon side of the question because you are not interested in >the truth. You view it as garbage. You have nothing but scorn for it. That is your >privilege. But don't even pretent to tell me what is true, until you have studied both >sides of the matter, and asked God the Father, in the name of Jeus Christ if this is true. (sic)
So, does that mean I cannot speak to you about truth until I read the Quran, Science and Keys to Scriptures, all the issues of Watch Tower, Desire of the Ages, etc…? They all claim to have exclusive divine authority. If I follow your logic, I can have nothing to offer you until I have earned the right to enter the Temple. This is exactly why the Temple, the resurrected priesthoods and the secrecy behind those doors is so pernicious. They have enslaved you and blinded you all the while convincing you that you have some new Gospel that no one before the time of Joseph Smith possessed.
I am praying that God will take the scales from your eyes. Who knows, you may become a great teacher once you too become a freeman.
|
|
My friend, Eleutheros,
Let me quote some of the things you wrote concerning your being born again.
"I accepted his challenge"
"I followed the prescription in Romans"
"I continued to read the scriptures"
"I sought out fellowship"
Please understand, I do not doubt that the experience you had was genuine, wonderful and valid. I know that the Grace of Jesus Christ was crucial to your change. Without it there would be no change. If Christ had not died for you and for me there would not be sufficient desire or will in us to do right.
Nevertheless, you did not say, "the Sprit of God in me continued to read," or The Spirit of God in me caused me to seek out fellowship." You said: "I accepted... I followed... I continued... I sought out."
You said you did these things, did you not? They were different things than you had done previously, were they not? So you said that you did different things than you did before. If you DO something different and you say that YOU DID it, then you say that YOU CHANGED, not that you WERE changed.
Maybe that's not what you meant. But that IS what you said. I think my reading comprehension is just fine thank you.
You went on to write:
"...it is vital to understand what I believe to be the power to live the life of Christ and is the key to keeping his commandments, not as a means of justification, but as the fruit of righteousness.
1. We agree that Jesus said in Matthew that by their fruits, we would know the righteous.
2. We agree that we have no power to change our natures exclusive of the grace of God through Christ by his Holy Spirit.
3. There are scriptures in the Bible that appear to contradict each other concerning works and justification:
Romans 2:13 "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the DOERS of the LAW SHALL BE JUSTIFIED."
versus:
Romans 3:20 "Therefore by the DEEDS of the LAW there shall NO FLESH be JUSTIFIED in his sight:..."
Or
Galatians 2:16 "...man is not JUSTIFIED by the WORKS of the LAW, but by the FAITH of JESUS CHRIST...for by the WORKS of the LAW shall NO FLESH be JUSTIFIED."
versus:
James 2:24 "Ye see then how that BY WORKS a man is JUSTIFIED and NOT by FAITH ONLY."
I could go on, but the point is that you can pick a topic in the Bible and go on and on defending it, while another fellow can take the opposite tack and defend it equally well with equal enthusiasm.
Pick a doctrine Grace vs. Works
God is spirit vs. God with
a body
etc, etc, etc.
Peter said: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
"For the PROPHECY came not in old time by the will of man: but HOLY MEN OF GOD SPAKE AS THEY WERE MOVED UPON BY THE HOLY GHOST." 2 Peter 1:20-21
When God prepared to do any great thing in history he sent word by angels to Prophets.
"SURELY the LORD GOD will DO NOTHING, but he REVEAL his secret unto HIS SERVANTS the PROPHETS." Amos 3:7
When God prepared to free Israel from the Egyptians he himself revealed his will to Moses.
When Isaiah was called to preach repentence to Israel the Lord came and commissioned him.
An angel came to Zacharias and told him that He and Elizabeth would have a son who would be a forerunner ofr the Messiah.
The angle Gabriel came to Mary to announce her part in bringing the Son of God into the World.
When Jesus was Baptized (to fulfill all righteousness, as he asked us also to do) the Father and the Holy Ghost bore witness to John the Baptist.
When Jesus took Peter, James and John up to the Mount of Transfiguration Moses and Elijah appeared to them.
When the Women came to the tomb on Easter Morning
Angels appeared to them and announced that Christ was risen.
Jesus himself came to his Apostles and taught them for forty days prior to his ascension as a heavenly resurrected being having a body of flesh and bone.
Peter was instructed by a dream and vision to take the Gospel to the Gentiles (who had previously had the Gospel withheld from them).
Saul was chastened by an Angel on the road to Damascus, was changed and became the Apostle Paul, (the teacher you are so fond of quoting).
Stephen saw the Son standing on the "right hand of God" as he was being stoned to death for blasphemy.
John the Revelator saw the Lord and his angels and was given a prophecy of the Last Days.
Eleutheros, the Bible you treasure and teach from and quote from tells of Angel after Angel, of God Himself appearing to impart the news of that which God will do.
You have told me that you believe Jesus is Coming a second time to the Earth. "Surely, the Lord God will do nothing, but he reveal his secrets unto his servants the prophets."
You can swallow the camel of all these heavenly visions, appearances and revelations, and strain at the gnat that God could choose to send new revelation, and new angels and new Prophets.
Is Moroni any stranger than God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac?
Is it any stranger for John to receive dreams and revelations and visits of Angels than for Joseph Smith to recieve visions and revelations to recieve the Book of Mormon?
As Jesus prepares to return to the earth who will he tell? For the Bible says that he will tell someone.
If God chooses to speak once more to man. Who are you to tell him he can not?
And that brings me to the next point.
You said:
"I truly believe that you have read substantially more about Joseph Smith than I have. But I maintain that you KNOW nothing about him either. Both of us are relying on the writings of those who did know him and others that have performed critical research of his life and claims."
1. You rely on others that quote the same old tired sad allegations that historical research has shown to be false. Your "golden Salamander" for example. If you didn't know that this had been discredited then you are ignorant. If you did know and used it anyway, then you are a liar.
You call that "critical research".
2. I followed the pattern that the Bible uses to know the truth. I "ask(ed) God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not and it (was) given unto me." See James 1:5
I didn't have to rely on men who knew him. I asked God who knows all men. And He who revealed to me that Jesus Christ is God, and the Son of God, and my Savior, revealed to me in the same manner and by the same power, the power of the Holy Ghost, that Joseph Smith was His Prophet. I KNOW that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God.
3. Thus, I maintain that you damn and blacken the name of a prophet of God. I asked and I know. And you, despite your degrees and published papers do not know, because you have not asked. And I dare say you may never know until the day when Jesus comes again on the earth, and you find to your dismay that Joseph Smith was everything that God said to me that he is. But then, perhaps you will someday come to the point that you will ask, and if you do then you will know what I now know.
The "better tone" I spoke of has reference to the truth. I don't say this with malice, for I do not hate you or even dislike you. I am simply stating fact. I know and you don't, and you do not now want to know.
As to judging, I agree with you, God does indeed ask us to choose carefully the company we keep.
That is why I taught my children to surround themselves with moral, upstanding friends. They did so and they have rarely given me a moment of concern because they are wonderful kids.
I have never accused you of any wrongdoing. I have never held your church or beliefs up to ridicule. When you told me of your experience of being born again I paraised it and rejoiced with youy in it. If I have disagreed with anything that you have said it has been doctrinal.
I am well aware of some of the epithets applied to the Pentecostal movement. I would not be party to using such words. I honor your attempt to keep your religion and to honor God. I do not think you honor God by blackening my religion. You build up your religion by talking about your religion, not by talking against mine.
The whole reason we are having this discussion is that a whole group of people took the Mormons to task and made some wild eyed statements about them that mostly have no resemblance to what I believe.
Take the Adam/God theory for example.
You claim we believe this even though I have repeatedly told you it is not so.
I will now quote from a guide to the scriptures found on lds.org:
ADAM
The first man on the earth.
Adam is the father and patriarch of the human race on the earth. His transgression in the Garden of Eden Gen 3 caused him to fall ands become mortal, a step necessary in order for mankind to progress on this earth...
Adam is the Ancient of Days and is also known as Michael. He is the Archangel and will come again on the earth as the partriarch of the human family, preparatory to the second coming of Jesus Christ.
God created man in his own image, Gen 1:26-28
God gave man dominion over all things and commanded him to multiply and replenish the earth... Gen 1:28-31 Adam named every living creature Gen 2:19-20 Adam and Eve were married by God Gen 2:18-25 Adam and Eve were tempted by Satan, partook of the forbidden fruit, and were cast out of the Garden of Eden, Gen 3..."
Now, I am certain that you can find things to disagree with here and I have not quoted the whole topic, but since we maintain that God created Adam, who was the first man, and God gave Adam dominion, and God married Adam and Eve. It would be difficult for God to BE Adam.
So just stop with the Adam/God thing. It just makes you look silly. If you need so desperately a copy of Talmadge I will send you my e-mail so I can send you a copy (free of charge, of course) or get it through the library, I mean...really!
By the way I have read Edersheim and Farrar.
I have read the Bible in Norwegian and in Spanish. I don't have a graduate degree and I haveln't been published, but I read approximately 3-5 books monthly on religion, science and history, not my own, in addition to daily study of the Bible, the Book of Mormon and the other Standard works of the Church.
Among the men currenly serving in the quorum of the 12 Apostles there are Two lawyers,a man who was seriously considered for the Supreme Court, three University Presidents, a medical doctor who is a renowned heart surgeon,Several Educators, a former vice-president of Lufthansa, at least three PHD's And a nuclear physicist and former assistant to Admiral Hymen Rickover, the father of our modern nuclear navy. I don't mean to boast either. But they have as many educational qualifications as you do. And they do not find my beliefs to be unintelligent or laughable.
I also recall that Jesus chose fishermen, and tax collectors to be his apostles.
This all means that you cannot speak to me about the truth of my religion until you read about it from the source, and pray about it. If the Book of Mormon is true, then God has once again restored the truth to the earth. If it is false then maybe the Bible isn't true either, Because the Book of Mormon bears fervent and powerful testimony of the Power and majesty of God and of his Christ.
"O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainess and the frailties, and the foolinshness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore thier wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.
"But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God."
2 Nephi 9:28-29 The Book of Mormon
"And if men come unto me I will show unto them thier weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them."
Ether 12:27 The Book of Mormon
|
|
|
|