Posted on 10/22/2010 5:53:55 AM PDT by Colofornian
I tend to think it would simply lead to further errosion of the family.
I think it would go that way too. The big thing about polygamy, no matter how right or wrong it is, is that the cultural environment doesn’t support it. In case one hasn’t noticed, Muslims have to do secret marriages in Europe and the U.S., with their “virtual wives” pretty much being treated as mistresses, and the Fundamentalist Groups live off in compounds. Come to think of it, I don’t think they even vote or take part in the political process, save demand welfare dollars. Christianity is about respecting and living within the Law of the Land, (Romans 13: 1-2) God does not want anarchy on the Earth, even degrees of repressive government are better than having everyone fend for themselves. Should someone try and flame me with the law requiring someone “to deny God, or deny that Jesus is the Christ”, this is the exception and not the rule. People should be willing to respect our rules on mongamy, regardless of which religion you are. Most religions can give this up if they had it, as far as I can tell, and if they are really that hinged on polygamy, let them face the test of living in society with everyone else, or pay for their polygamous wives and children out of their own pocket, or be punished for neglect if they don’t.
Don’t count what I say as more than heresay, but from my discussion with a Mormon Church member in New York, the argument was that even Mormons could go to hell, but somehow people couldn’t be judged by God without some sort of proxy ordinance. Wierd, but I think most of our religions do believe in leaving the judgement up to God in some way or another. I don’t think proxy ordinances are needed though, something that really sets me apart from them. I think God can carry out the judgement on his own as to how worthy of heaven or hell one was in this life.
And dont forget Adolf Hitler who has had so many dead dunkings and mormon endowements and ordinances done for him by the mormons that he is now “worthy” and entitled to go to the mormon”celestial kingdom” with Joey Smith, Briggie Young, Goro Hinckley and Tommy Munson...
and dont lets forget Williard Mitt Romney and Glenn Beck who get to pal around with Hitler also...
Thats if those 2 are “worthy” too...
Plus theres Vlad the Impaler and Josef Stalin and Lenin and Judas waiting for all the mormon guys to get there...
Then its on...
PARTY !!!!
:)
And also dont forget we already have our first mormon president...
Barry’s Momma, Stanley Ann Dunham has been well dead dunked, plus the endowments and ordinances to make her a mormon...
all done by June 2008...The mormon god knew that her only son was going to be POTUS...
Plus Stan Ann was “sealed” to her children...that means her kids are now mormons too...
So now..
We do have a mormon president...
And a black one at that...
Somewhere Joey Smith and Briggie Young and John Taylor et al are smiling..
and I just know Williard Mitt Romney has been crying with joy since Nov 2008...
And wouldnt dare run against a fellow worthy anointed priesthood holder mormon for the office of president...
How apostate would that be ???
:):):)
May I be so bold as to suggest that perhaps you misunderstand the Christian gospel?
Do you realize right after John 3:16...comes these two verses: 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. (John 3:18-19)
IOW, God already has judged our sin. The verdict has already been rendered...and the punishment was taken out upon Christ on the cross.
That's the Christian gospel: That we don't have to to wonder about our eventual destination. 1 John 5:11-13 also expresses how one can have assurance of salvation. (And in John 3:36 and 5:24, Jesus expresses eternal life as something we have -- present tense -- not will have...future tense).
I don’t think proxy ordinances are needed though, something that really sets me apart from them. I think God can carry out the judgement on his own as to how worthy of heaven or hell one was in this life.
We need to ask ourselves: What is the basis of whether or how God will forgive our personal sins?
I think we tend to "miss the boat" in misunderstanding two dimensions of judgment: One dimension is our sin nature and our individual acts of sin--including our sins of omission. The other dimension is our works.
We can't exchange the two. For our sin, Heavenly Father fully judged Jesus on the cross (as I said; this is past tense). When Jesus said "It is finished" on the cross, He used a phrase that in His day was a financial phrase meaning, "paid in full." Our debt -- our sin -- was paid in full. If we try to pay for our sin/atonement, Heavenly Father rejects it as being laced with unrighteousness (Is. 64:6).
And as Judge, both the Father and Jesus could claim, “that's double jeopardy” if we try to pay for what Jesus already paid for on the cross.
But when people talk about God judging the stewardship of our works in the future, they are correct. Note this passage:
By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's WORK. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; HE HIMSELF WILL BE SAVED, but only as one escaping through the flames. (1 Cor. 3:10-15)
Do we see that last sentence? Even if our work is burned up, we can "suffer loss" in heaven -- yet, Paul assures us that "he himself WILL BE saved." (Paul goes on to describe that like somebody pulled out of a burning building at the last second...by Jesus Christ the Deliverer and Rescuer).
So, our works will get quite a "grilling" of judgment from God -- future tense. But Paul makes it clear in this passage that even when our measured works burn up as nothing -- as God's fiery judgment takes a match to them like fuel, we ourselves "will still be saved." (1 Cor. 3:15)
So the righteousness of Jesus is our free pass into heaven. (1 Cor. 1:30). Entrust your life to Him (that is more than just mouthing a few words). But simultaneously, be prepared that once you get there based solely upon your faith in Christ, that He will take a fine-toothcomb to our works -- and judge them. And that it's possible to still become saved -- and still "suffer loss." (None of us should want to suffer such loss in heaven -- whatever that turns out to be)
If anybody's shooting for trying to show God how "worthy" they are, they are worshiping the wrong God. (The word "worthy" is tied to "worship"; and we are not to either worship or "worthship" ourselves). Our value and worth was shown by Jesus at the cross. He died for us. We are only "worthy" in Him. 'Tis NONE of it is of ourselves.
On top of that, Jesus says we need to be perfect (Matt. 5:48). And if we break one part of the law, we are guilty of all of it (book of James). Therefore we fall short. Our self-worth is never enough. Our only hope is to have our sin be judged according to the perfection of Jesus Christ, which is substituted on our behalf. That's why Paul says Jesus is OUR Righteousness. (1 Cor. 1:30)
I see you obeyed me; NOW your getting somewhere.
The government only gets its money through taxes. If you want government subsidies, you should be prepared to take government restrictions.
If you don’t want government interference, don’t take the hand outs.
But what about my statement that “proxy ordinances” (their words) are unneccessary? That was my primary point in the post.
As far as most of what I read in this post here, I don’t understand how there is not judgement in the hands of God. It’s not a simple guilty/innocent verdict here, sure. But it is a verdict which reads “Is this imperfect (has sinned, haven’t we all) man/woman worthy of favorably entering the kingdom of God? Now Jesus must answer for our sins for a favorable judgement, because we accepted him and his atoning sacrifice, we can’t make it without his grace thanks to our nature. You further proved my point that God is in the business of handling who is saved/condemned.
As far as my primary argument here, that proxy ordinances ARE NOT NECCESSARY, because God is the handler of the business of people’s salvation/condemnation?
My answer is no, and you could have answered no, making the answer fairly simple.
I understand your concern that perhaps they might convert me, but looking at 200,000 + as another poster pointed out, and comparing that to almost 7 billion people worldwide, that’s not much of the world’s population, especially when you figure that like most other religions, you have converts that don’t stay members of that faith for very long.
How is President Barack Hussein Obama a Mormon, if that’s who you are suggesting? Perhaps I didn’t get the joke, if that’s what you intended it to be.
As far as Mitt Romney goes, the guy is a RINO, who I wouldn’t trust to take the proper stand against universal healthcare, among other things, I don’t care if it’s John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, or Mitt Romney, they’re all part of the same club, and none of them belong in the oval office.
How is President Barack Hussein Obama a Mormon, if that’s who you are suggesting? Perhaps I didn’t get the joke, if that’s what you intended it to be.
A lot of what she says is so out there. I usually just shake my head and grimace confusedly.
If dogs could read they’d probably do that funny move where they close their mouth and tilt their head in confusion.
How is President Barack Hussein Obama a Mormon, if that’s who you are suggesting? Perhaps I didn’t get the joke, if that’s what you intended it to be.
_______________________________________________
Unfortunately, its no joke...
Barry Soetoro is now a mormon...
Thats the ideea behind the dead dunking and those monstrosities laughingly called “temples”
The mormons dead dunk everyone into mormonism...
Once someone has been proxy dead dunked for you after you are dead, you are no longer a Christian, Jew, atheist, Hindu, Buddist etc...
You are now a mormon...
Whether you ever wanted to be or not...
Welcome to FantasyAfterLifeLand, mormon style...
Thats why they sneak up on your mouldy body and do it ...
Who in their right mind would leave Christianity and become a mormon while they still were alive and able to say “Get off my porch and take your damnable false religion literature with you” ???
The idea of polygamy (FLDS polygamy especially) repels me, but your Founders did decide not to have an established church despite it being an ostensibly devout Christian nation, and you do have a constitution which stops the federal government from imposing one particular faith as the primary one again despite America being more devoutly Christian than England now is.
We have an established church over here and despite the UK now (sadly) being more secular than ever, that one brake in the system remains in place - our Parliament keeps the C of E and the chief Rabbi amongst others in a position where they can challenge any laws undermining the faith aspect of the code of law - other faiths are represented by proxy in the same way.
Question: How constitutional are the federal laws that prevent polygamy given you're prevented from ever having a brake against such perversions, in the way that we have?
So far as I can see, the prohibition of polygamy only stands because successive (Christian) activist judges have maintained something that originally started out as an underhanded political blackmail measure (to keep Deseret/Utah out of the Civil War). I'm no expert but surely those laws would've been UNCONSTITUTIONAL not because of their content, but because of the reason they were framed (i.e. to oppress those of a given faith purely for political gain)?
THINKS: The historical right to a "common law marriage" (one man, one woman, consent, public recognition of their union as a consequence of living together) is an unenumerated right in the UK, was recognized by Pope Innocent III, and is maintained in all main faiths, until the Catholics and the C of E decided they wanted to control the entire nation state as well as the people in their pews.
Strikes me that there's an obvious solution to this that doesn't involve creating a state religion: recognize common law marriage as an unenumerated right (as it already should be), and strike down any unconstitutional barriers to CLM.
This lets the churches and/or the states impose additional constraints in marriage ceremonies, but ALSO ensures the state can't redefine marriage to include same-sex or polygamous relationships.
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.