Posted on 11/13/2007 12:08:42 PM PST by meandog
Well said!
True!!!
Well.. it IS a cult, after all...
There is a difference between a social club and a religion. As far as exclusivity, that’s OK by me. People should have freedom of association. I didn’t say anyone’s secret rituals should be abolished (as long as they don’t involve something illegal). I just think it is bizarre.
None of that changes the fact that Mormonism is a cult, and I am free to withhold support for someone running for president who is a member of a cult.
Sorry. Try again. In these cases, Jesus didn't contradict what was taught in the Old Testament. No u-turn was done. He expounded upon the content, sometimes adding. If you come home & your wife offers you an unexpected desert, she's not serving up something totally different for dinner than what you were told was on the menu. She's adding --not subtracting anything.
(And then you add some things that have never been Mormon doctrine.)
Oh really? Like what thingS--plural? (Can't be the doctrine of some pre-mortal spirits were less valiant--neutral--& cursed. Several LDS "prophets" taught that; McConkie has it in "Mormon Doctrine. My LDS KJV Bible says: "Although one-third of the spirits became devils, the remaining two-thirds were not all equally valiant..." And it's on this understanding that the idea of a skin cursed is based)
(Can't be the doctrine of becoming a god.)
That leaves only one thing (singular): Blood atonement...and that was repeatedly taught by someone who bears the name of the major LDS university...so it really doesn't make sense for you to try to parse words..."Oh, yes, the teachings have changed but not the doctrines" (give me a break...if you can't take the official leader of the church at his word, then who can you trust in the church?)
BB: What I said is correct. What is right with God changes. If not, why do we have polygamy in the OT and not in the NT?
Please direct me to one Old Testament passage where God directly tells any man to take an additional wife? You have bought into a false assumption that just because some men practiced it that God told them to. In fact, God tells them the opposite. Look at Deut. 17:17: "He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray."
Jesus even defines for us how it was in the beginning: "...Have ye not read, that he which them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall A man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his WIFE [SINGULAR]: and they twain shall be one flesh?" (Matthew 19:4-5)
So it wasn't God who changed; it was men (and especially early in Biblical history, women...women who encouraged their husbands to sleep with their maidservants...who, BTW aren't even classified as plural wives in the OT). Look also for example at Abijah (2 Chron. 11:23). This passage description indicates that he sought out multiple wives with a hint of sexual desire ("he desired many wives") I wouldn't call that a noble characteristic of a man of God, would you?
Or why temple ceremony in the OT but not after Christ’s death?
God didn't change His mind about the need for a sacrifice. He built it up all along in OT history thru "the blood of goats and calves" (Heb. 9:12). But these animals were but an inkling of the Lamb of lambs to come: "by his own blood he entered in ONCE into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls & of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; How much more shall teh blood of Christ...purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Heb. 9:12-14)
I mean, you don't want Christ to come back every day, enter into the holy place, and die yet again & again for your sins, do you?
And just because Jesus was only incarnated ONCE doesn't mean God changed His mind about THAT idea & did a u-turn, concluding, "Oh, that was a bad doctrinal idea."
Your posts speak for themselves.......
If someone really wants to have a correct picture of the church and its teachings, they would do better to go to the “Encyclopedia of Mormonism,” a four volume work put out by Macmillan, written and approved by a broad base of Mormon scholars and leaders.
But even so, what has this got to do with the campaign? Let us spend more time talking about how to unite and beat the democrats and less time quibbling about theology.
No, actually your hero Jimmy Carter speaks for himself! I just report the facts.
“I still think we should keep the Sabbath day holy, although I must say it isn’t observed much any more. You don’t?”
Sabbath is for Jews. 4th of July is for Americans.
“Well, while I don’t personally ascribe to the socialist philosophy, I have to remind you that both nuns and monks reflect precisely the same exact lifestyle of what socialism/communism purports in that 1. they live in communes, 2. share everything. 3. work for the common good—in this case Christianity. The early Mormon Church also was run much the same way if you review history.”
^^This is one reason I don’t belive in Paul’s writings.^^
Yeah, you’re right, he should of just run rough shod over the state constitution, that’s just the guy I would want.
Romney isn’t a legal expert, so yes, he asked the lawyers what he could do legally in regards to the issue and the state constitution.
You my friend scare me, you want a President that would bypass Constitutional rights to achieve something.
Even if I agree with what he’s doing, it’s still illegal, and I may like that now, but what happens when it’s something I’m against and he runs rough shod over the Constitution again?
Sorry, in some cases you have to talk to the lawyers, since you know, they do specialize in legal matters, I mean you wouldn’t want a podiatrist to perform heart surgery on you would you?
You sir, are ignorant of what the state constitution says.
The supreme court cannont make laws.
That is for the legislature to do.
The legislature refused to make a law that the supreme court wanted. So Romney stepped in and saved the day for gay marriage!
You my friend are ignorant...
He went to the legislature because he had no choice, the court said what it said.
And you’re right, the court doesn’t make law, merely interpret it, and in the courts interpretation laws against gay marriage were illegal based on the STATE constitution.
So now, when you have your hands tied legally by the courts, wouldn’t you consult a lawyer as to what other routes are available?
I”m sorry, I appreciate leader who is willing to consult those more knowledgeable in a certain field than to just make a wild arse decision.
So I would love to see anyone of your preferred candidates come to MA and try to govern in a conservative manner and see how much they can get through the Democrat run legislature.
Don’t forget, he also have Cadillac DeVal actively working against him as governor elect to prevent the amendment from ever seeing the light of day by offering plum posts to outgoing senators if they voted against it.
You are ignoring some key facts.
The court ORDERED the legislature to make a law or find a way for gays to have the right to marry. They even gave the legislature a time limit.
The legislature ignored the court, rightly so as the court cannot make law.
So then what happens?
Romney steps in and orders that gay marriage be the law, although there was no such law on the books. To this day there is no law on the books legalizing gay marriage.
Now how you can defend that is beyond me.
If he had ignored the court, just like the Democrat legislature had done, there would be no gay marriage in MASS.
Whatever.
Wanna tell us why LDS HQ, in its 1979 King James Bible (Bible Dictionary section @ end), saw fit to link the issue of "neutrals" ("The nature of the conflict, however, is such that there could be no neutrals...") with the "two-thirds [who] were not all equally valiant?"
Some LDS prophets haven't used exact "neutral" pre-mortal spirit language; still, they've linked faithfulness--and lack of faithfulness--in the first estate with "great advantages" and "disadvantages."
If you are a Mormon, and your living prophet teaches you a teaching, who are you to call his teaching a liar? If you were alive when 10th LDS prophet Joseph Fielding Smith was alive, then you would have had to embrace the following:
"...there is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient; more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less" (Doctrines of Salvation 1:61).
Joseph Fielding Smith also wrote: "It was well understood by the early elders of the Church that the mark which was placed on Cain and which his posterity inherited was the black skin. The Book of Moses informs us that Cain and his descendants were black" (The Way to Perfection, p.107).
It has never been Mormon doctrine that there were neutral pre-mortal spirits. Period. End of story.
Oh, I guess you weren't around to be the "consultant" then for the First Presidency in 1947. (You could have properly "corrected" them)
"From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the gospel." (Statement of The First Presidency on the Negro Question, July 17, 1947, quoted in Mormonism and the Negro pp.46-47)
Now what LDS scriptural passages carry full doctrinal revelational import that LDS believe that the dark skin of Native Americans, Hispanics, and people of African descent is a curse from God due to moral inferiority and spiritual unrighteousness? Well take a look at Moses 7:8,22 and Alma 3:6,9 (see also 2 Nephi 5:21-22 and Mormon 5:15).
And everything in McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” is not Mormon doctrine. The book, well meaning, is an embarrassment to many Mormons. The president of the Mormon Church asked McConkie not to publish that book. He did anyway. The president then asked an apostle of the church to review the book and report. The apostle found over 1,000 errors in the book.
McConkie was never released from being second in rank to the prophet as "apostle" of the church. So while Lee as a fellow high (as in highest) ranking Mormon would have preferred the book not be published, and stated so, Lee as prophet had the authority to entirely squelch the book...but did not.
So an LDS apostle carries with him more authority than any grassroots squelching you now attempt to wield X number of years later. So what did this LDS apostle have to say?
“Those who were less valiant in pre-existence & who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes.”) p. 476. “The present status of the negro rests purely & simply on the foundation of pre-existence. Along with all races and peoples he is receiving here what he merits as a result of the long pre-mortal probation in the presence of the Lord.” (P. 477)
But even so, what has this got to do with the campaign? Let us spend more time talking about how to unite and beat the democrats and less time quibbling about theology.
Well, first of all I was directly responding to a comment about "Romney's religion" and its direct impact upon how Romney would govern.
But secondly, this very issue becomes an MSM issue in '08 if Romney is the nominee.
The quotes I had above are not the only deceased LDS leaders who have commented on this subject. Somebody else who did was Romney's great-great-great-uncle, Orson Pratt, in his 1850s book "The Seer."
Pratt wrote: Among the two-thirds who remained, it is highly probably, that, there were many who were not valiant in the war, but whose sins were of such a nature that they would be forgiven through faith in the future sufferings of the Only Begotten of the Father... (p.54) ...If all the two-thirds who kept their first estate were equally valiant in the war, and equally faithful, why should some of them be called and chosen in their spiritual state to hold responsible stations and offices in this world, while others were not?” (p.55) One class of spirits are permitted to come into the world in an age when the priesthood and kingdom of God are on the earth, and they hear and receive the gospel; others enter the world in an age of darkness, and are educated in foolish and erroneous doctrines. Some are born among the people of God and are brought up in the right way; others are born among the heathen, and are taught to worship idols. Some spirits take bodies in the lineage of the chosen seed, through whom the priesthood is transferred, others receive bodies among the African Negroes or in the lineage of Canaan whose descendants were cursed, pertaining to the priesthood. Now if all the spirits were equally faithful in their first estate in keeping the laws thereof, why are they placed in such dissimilar circumstances in their second estate?” (p.56)
I would think since Pratt made so many incendiary comments not only like this one but calling other non-LDS church members "the whore of Babylon" in his book, that the MSM will eventually get around to asking Romney about his own lineage and what they wrote.
The other thing you don’t seem to understand is there is a way of presenting things authoritatively in the LDS Church. When that is followed, Mormons take the statements seriously. In addition to that, people in the Church can express their personal opinion verbally and in writing. This is true of ordinary members. It is true of apostles and it is true of the president of the Church. When they are doing the latter, Mormons are not bound by what they say. Often when a Church leader is writing a book, they will say in the preface that they are speaking for themselves and not the Church. Often it is not said, only taken for granted. Mormons are able mostly to sort that out. Non-Mormons seem to have trouble with it. And if a non-member is looking for something to bring up against Mormons, they will search for problematic areas and attach to them like a magnet to iren.
Also, who cares what someone’s great-great-great-uncle said?
Isn’t that reaching a bit?
Latter Day Saints are one of the wealthiest religions in the world ($30 Billion)
Church controls over 100 companies and Businesses (Marriott Corp)
Spends $300 million/year on media campaigns
Received $3 million/day in tithes
Has 50,000 missionaries
Grows in membership by 1,500 each day; 11 million+ in 170 countries
Mormons are honest, hard-working, sincere, dependable.
Joseph Smith, at age 14, in 1820 went into the woods to pray about what church to join.
Smith said God appeared to him and told him not to join any of the denominational churches, because “All their creeds are an abomination and their professors are corrupt”.
Smith said that in 1823, when he was age 17, the angel Moroni directed him to find some golden plates with strange inscriptions. Smith translated the plates and published their contents in 1830 (when he was age 24).
What man is, God once was;
what God is, man may become.
God is an exalted man.
Mormons believe there are many Gods (the God of the Bible is just one of many millions and billions).
In 1844 Smith write that “God was once a man who dwelt on this earth. Men and women can attain Godhood.”
“He was once a man like us”.
See Isaiah 46:9
Mormons use Old Testament passages out of context, to try and prove God is human.
They took everything figurative in scripture and made it literal.
Mormons teach Polytheism [belief in more than one God].
There are lots of Gods in other universes.
Man can become a God.
But we only worship the God of this universe.
The Mormon God was a polygamist, and Jesus Christ was just one of the many millions and billions of offspring, including Lucifer.
There was a contest among siblings over who would be the God of this planet, and Jesus Christ won.
Mormons teach that God got into Mary’s womb and had physical sexual relations with Mary [Since God already had millions of previous wives, this is adultery]
Sandra Tanner, a great-great-great granddaughter of Brigham Young, witnesses to Mormons; has a website www.latterdaysaints.com
Because some spirits had already not behaved properly, they came out of the womb black; so until 1978 blacks were not eligible for Godhood. Spencer Kimball, head of the LDS, heard from God in 1978, and since he is authorized to write mormon scripture, Blacks were declared eligible for Godhood.
Mormon doctrine says that during the period 2,227 BC to 447 AD, a Jewish Christian group lived in the upper New York State area of the North American continent. But there are absolutely no artifacts or historic evidence to support the Book of Mormon on this subject.
Archeology verifies people, places and the culture of the Bible. But there is nothing whatsoever in archeology to support this Mormon claim.
The Smithsonian Institution has issued a statement that “Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter in ‘The Book of Mormon’ “.
www.concernedchristians.org/library/topical/smithsonian.html
www.knowtruth.com/untruth/mormonism/mormonism_and_bible.htm
Mormons believe there are three parts of heaven:
Telestial Kingdom;
Terrestrial Kingdom; and
Celestial Kingdom. Work your way to becoming a God. When you achieve Godhood you then inherit your own universe.
Christians believe that Christian work is done out of gratitude and to support the Christian Church, But works are not the means of being saved.
Mormon suicide rate is among the highest in the U.S.
(People are frustrated with being able to achieve the perfect life in hope of achieving Godhood
Everyone goes to one of the three Kingdoms (even Hitler, etc). But only through works can one reach the celestial kingdom.
Summary of LDS teachings:
LDS are the only true authorized Church;
You can become a God just like the God of the Bible and rule over your own universe.
God is an exalted man with many wives; Jesus Christ is just one of the kids by one of these wives.
The Bible only tells part of the story; other books are needed.
All people go to a “nice’ place at death (that is, there is no Hell and eternal damnation);
Jesus + good works = salvation
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.