Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mormons and Demons [Lds believe Lucifer REALLY is Jesus' -- and their -- literal 'brother']
American Spectator ^ | June 2012 | Jeremy Lott

Posted on 08/02/2012 3:35:51 PM PDT by Colofornian

...Mike Huckabee...candidate for the Republican nomination—was being pressed by a reporter for the New York Times Magazine about the religion of his rival, Willard Mitt Romney, before the 2008 Iowa caucuses. The reporter prodded Huckabee with an all-important question...: Mormonism—cult or religion?

...The Times noted that he asked with an “innocent voice” the following question: “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”

...A spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said that while Mormons believe “all beings were created by God and are his spirit children,” Jesus Christ was the “only begotten in the flesh”; the “son of God”; and the “savior of mankind.”

SNIP

Theologically, the religion is almost uncategorizeable...They are best described not as polytheists but henotheists, because they seem to believe in more than one god but only worship one of them...Some of their temple-rituals hearken back to the mystery religions of the Roman empire...They reject the Trinity as firmly as they reject predestination.

...Mormons believe the church fell apart very early on, right around the end of the first century. They believe the church was reestablished by divine intervention through the prophecies and presence of Smith...

...it is drilled into them that their actions here on this earth really will affect their heavenly rewards hereafter. Speculation about what form those rewards might take is a perennial subject of mockery by critics of Mormonism. (“They think they’ll become gods! They’ll inherit their own planets!”)...

ROMNEY CAN BE protean and pragmatic when it comes to business and politics, but when the subject is Mormonism, he really believes the stuff...He has baptized the dead by proxy, but not “recently.” Mitt has tithed millions of dollars to the LDS church and spent years of his life volunteering as a missionary, bishop, and stake president.

(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...


TOPICS: Other non-Christian; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics; Theology
KEYWORDS: devil; inman; lds; mittromney; mormonism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-177 next last
From the article: The reporter prodded Huckabee with an all-important question facing our Republic: Mormonism—cult or religion?...The Times noted that he asked with an “innocent voice” the following question: “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”...A spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said that while Mormons believe “all beings were created by God and are his spirit children,” Jesus Christ was the “only begotten in the flesh”; the “son of God”; and the “savior of mankind.”

Iow...the "spokesperson" for the Mormon church didn't tell the "fullness" of truth about Mormon theology.

Well, that was Huckabee in Dec 2007...Then fast-forward 25 months to late January 2010. Rexburg Idaho. Home of BYU-Idaho. An Lds "apostle," M. Russell Ballard, gives an unscripted fireside "convo" with Mormon students. See: Ballard speaks on Mormons in the media from the Rexburg Standard Journal, which covers the talk.

Ballard lets the "cat out of the bag": From the Rexburg article: "You remember Mr. (Mike) Huckabee (who was also vying to be the Republican candidate for president), who among other things said that Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil were brothers?" Ballard asked students. "Remember that? It went all over the media. "Well they are!" Ballard exclaimed to a laughing student body.

Ah, yes. When Mormons accused Huckabee of lying about this -- or worse. They were all offended. Get them behind closed doors, and they laugh about the reality of having Mormon worldviews pegged in the public square.

So, here, we have an Lds general authority conceding that -- to quote him "Well they are!" in reference to the issue of whether they cite "Jesus and the devil are brothers."

Now in case someone views that this information needs to be suppressed...not let it become aired out...or they think that we are overriding realities in our assessments of Mormonism, Elder Ballard concedes at this fireside chatm adding: "But they (the media and nonmembers) don't understand that, because they don't have the (LDS gospel) restoration. They don't understand the spiritual relationship that ... we are all sons and daughters of God, and that Lucifer was one of those and (that) he chose to use his agency in an unrighteous way."

Let's read what some Mormon leaders have had to say?

An LDS "Seventy" named Milton R. Hunter wrote: "The appointment of Jesus to be Saviour of the world was contested by one of the other sons of God. He was called Lucifer, Son of the Morning .... this spirit brother of Jesus desperately tried to become the Saviour of Mankind." MILTON R. HUNTER (First Council of 70) The Gospel Through the Ages, p. 15, 1958

Brigham Young said: “Who will redeem the earth, who will go forth and make the sacrifice for the earth and all things it contains?” The Eldest Son said: “Here am I”; and then he added, “Send me.” But the second one, which was “Lucifer, Son of the Morning,” said, “Lord, here am I, send me, I will redeem every son and daughter of Adam and Eve that lives on the earth, or that ever goes on the earth.” (Journal of Discourses, pp. 53-54)

As it's indicated in LDS Scripture, Book of Abraham, LDS do indeed believe that Jesus is the "elder brother" of Lucifer, and that Lucifer is also every Mormon's "elder brother."

In 1844, LDS author W.W. Phelps wrote: "And again, we exclaim, O Mormonism! No wonder that Lucifer, son of the morning, the next heir to Jesus Christ, our eldest brother, should fight so hard against his brethren; he lost the glory, the honor, power, and dominion of a God and the knowledge, spirit, authority and keys of the priesthood of the son of God!"

In 1949 this LDS Conference Report features LDS apostle Joseph F. Merrill, who says that Lucifer "is a spirit brother of ours and of our Lord Jesus Christ..." Here's the exact quote:

"Now there is another personality of which I desire to speak, ... that person is Satan, the Devil. But according to our understanding and teaching, Satan is a person with a spirit body, in form like that of all other men. He is a spirit brother of ours and of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is our Elder Brother in the spirit world. The earth was in course of development for the abode of man in mortality. A Redeemer was to be sent down and make it possible for the Father's children to return to him." (LDS Conference Report, April 1949, p. 27)

LDS "Apostle" John A. Widtsoe taught that Jesus is not only the brother of Jesus, but his "elder brother." Exact quote:

"The story of Lucifer is the most terrible example of such apostasy. ... He pitted his own plan and will against the purposes of God. He strove to gain the birthright of his Elder Brother, Jesus the Christ." (Evidences and Reconciliations, p. 209)

1 posted on 08/02/2012 3:35:57 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Tis true tis true.


2 posted on 08/02/2012 3:38:16 PM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

But we were told his religon would never be brought up by the fans of mitt...

sadly he is still leaps and bounds better than the alternative.


3 posted on 08/02/2012 3:38:55 PM PDT by Bidimus1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All; aMorePerfectUnion
From the article: Theologically, the religion is almost uncategorizeable...They are best described not as polytheists but henotheists, because they seem to believe in more than one god but only worship one of them...

Well, while henotheism does have a "there's-many-gods-but-we-worship-only-one of them" aspect to it, Mormon theology actually is: "there's-many-gods-but-we-worship-BOTH-Elohim-and-Jesus-which-makes-for-worshiping-those-we-deem-as-TWO-separate-gods"

Also, Mormon theology advocates the worship of other gods besides that...just by others (vs. themselves)...THAT is indeed polytheism...

Besides, Lds "apostle" Bruce McConkie, in his book, Mormon Doctrine, couldn't even do simple math about how many gods LDS are to worship!

Q1 How many (true) gods are worshiped in the Bible?

A One according to Jews & Christians

Q2 How many (true) gods are worshiped in the Book of Mormon?

A Two according to the Mormon definition of Heavenly Father and Jesus being two separate gods.

Q3 How many (true) gods are worshiped according to their LDS apostle's "Mormon Doctrine" 1966 book?

A Three according to the Mormon definition of Heavenly Father and Jesus and the Holy Ghost being three separate gods): "Three separate personages--the Father, Son and Holy Ghost--comprise the Godhead...To us, speaking in the proper finite sense, these three are the only gods we worship." (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 567-577, 1966 edition

* [As in asterisk...a "oh, yeah, wait a minute."]

* (I should have kept reading further down in McConkie's book). McConkie, on p. 848, only emphasizes worshiping two gods: "The Father and the Son are the objects of all true worship....No one can worship the Father without also worshiping the Son....It is proper to worship the Father, in the name of the Son, and also to worship the Son" (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 848).

** [a double asterisk as in "Oh, yeah...I should have waited until McConkie circled back around to give a devo @ BYU in 1982]

** McConkie changes his mind by 1982, when he gave that special devo @ BYU 30 years ago (March 2, 1982, "Our Relationship with the Lord.")

Essentially, McConkie wasn't happy with either his "3" god or "2" god worship. So he came up with a kind of 1 1/2-god worship to present to BYU students:

We do NOT worship the Son, and we do not worship the Holy Ghost. I know perfectly well what the scriptures say about worshipping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different sense--the sense of standing in awe and being reverentially grateful to him who has redeemed us. Worship in the true and saving sense is reserved for God the first, the Creator.

Wow! Even the word "worship" gets twisted and distorted by Mormon general authorities and the "disciples" of Mormon who follow them.

4 posted on 08/02/2012 3:40:55 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

The lds-org denies that Jesus is the Creator, that everything was created BY Him.

Pray they repent of their falsehoods and see the Truth.

5 posted on 08/02/2012 3:41:03 PM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

None of this has anything to do with whether someone is a good or bad citizen of the US and does not diminish his right as a citizen to hold elective office in this country.


6 posted on 08/02/2012 3:44:24 PM PDT by 1raider1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
From the article: ...Mormons believe the church fell apart very early on, right around the end of the first century. They believe the church was reestablished by divine intervention through the prophecies and presence of Smith...

This contradicts a prophesy by the apostle Paul, who highlighted that Jesus is the Ever-Present Master Church-Builder who prevails as the Strong Guardian of a Church that has never fully apostatized are:

Ephesians 3:21: to him [God] be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.

The apostle Paul's prophesy here is that ALL generations of the Church would (and have) given God glory, for ever and ever!

Yup...how "inspirational" it is for a POTUS candidate to come along and believe the following...essentially saying..."Yup. I adhere to the 'faith of my fathers.' Will you vote for me in November now?"

Snapshot of Joseph Smith’s Slanderous Invectives vs. Christian Sects

Mormon Source

[Note: Most of these are Mormon ‘scriptures'. In fact, First three rows below are Lds 'scripture' & therefore cannot be rug-swept any more than a Jew might try to take three commandments off of the very tablets of stone Moses brought down from the mountain]
“...which of all the sects was right… must join NONE of them, for they were ALL WRONG… those professors were ALL CORRUPT…” Joseph Smith – History vv. 18-19. – Lds "scripture" Pearl of Great Price
...“which of all the sects was right…ALL their CREEDS were an ABOMINATION in his sight…they teach for doctrines the commandments of MEN…” Joseph Smith – History vv. 18-19. – Lds "scripture" Pearl of Great Price
Mormon church the only ‘Christ-sanctioned’ church on earth: “…the foundation of this [Mormon] church…the ONLY true and living church on the face of the whole earth” [Obvious ‘scorched earth’ implication: All other churches are false and dead] Lds “scripture” Doctrines & Covenants 1:30
Direct question asked of Joseph Smith: 'Will everybody be damned, but Mormons?" Answer from Lds "prophet" Joseph Smith: 'Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent, and work righteousness." Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 119 [Not “scripture” – but still publicly spoken by the Mormon ‘living prophet’ and published by a later Mormon ‘living prophet,’ Joseph Fielding Smith – via a publisher owned by the Mormon church – Deseret News Press, 1938]
“In 1952…the first official proselyting plan was sent to missionaries throughout the world…It included seven missionary discussions that emphasized…[four topics, one of them being]THE APOSTASY and Restoration…” [This makes it 60 years that Mormon church missionaries, now numbering 55,000, have formally emphasized in its training & door to door saturation a priority in bashing the worldwide Christian church as “apostates” (100% AWOL)] Our Heritage: A Brief History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints p. 116, 1996

7 posted on 08/02/2012 3:46:30 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

who cares? I don’t.


8 posted on 08/02/2012 3:48:57 PM PDT by Perdogg (Let's leave reading things in the Constitution that aren't there to liberals and Dems)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Let there be peace on earth. And let it begin with me. Let there be peace on earth. The peace that was meant to be. With God as our father. Brothers all are we.
- Vince Gill, lyrics

OUR Father.–From this we see that we owe our neighbor both love and reverence. We must love our neighbor because we are all brothers, and all men are sons of God, our Father: “For he that loveth not his brother whom he seeth, how can he love God whom he seeth not?” We owe reverence to our neighbor because he is also a child of God: “Have we not all one Father? Hath not one God created us? Why then does everyone of us despise his brother?”
- St. Thomas Aquinas, analyzing The Lord’s Prayer

While I am neither LDS nor a Romney fan, I don’t find the belief under discussion so bizarre that it would affect Romney’s ability to serve as president. Romney is far too liberal for my tastes, but it’s his liberalism and not his LDS beliefs that disturb me. I know quite a few Mormons who are at least as conservative as I am.


9 posted on 08/02/2012 3:51:38 PM PDT by Pollster1 (Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1raider1

“None of this has anything to do with whether someone is a good or bad citizen of the US and does not diminish his right as a citizen to hold elective office in this country.”

Exactly! Mitt has the right to hold office - regardless of the fact he thinks he will become a god of his own planet. Regardless of his belief that as a god, he will breed with multiple goddess wives to populate his own planet. Regardless of his perversion of the nature of God and his idolatry as a mormon.

Whether I would vote for someone who believes such cultic idiocy is another story.


10 posted on 08/02/2012 3:52:18 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ("I'm comfortable with a Romney win." - Pres. Jimmy Carter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All; FastCoyote
From the article: ...it is drilled into them that their actions here on this earth really will affect their heavenly rewards hereafter. Speculation about what form those rewards might take is a perennial subject of mockery by critics of Mormonism. (“They think they’ll become gods! They’ll inherit their own planets!”)...

Some of the classic 2007 FR threads we had featured a Flying Inman poster, Fast Coyote. Fast Coyote would occasionally "don" the garb of one who was a "god in embryo" about to raise himself up by the bootstraps as a "god" and would begin posting as if he was earnest in his readiness to be/become divine.

He would humorously describe some of the details of that transition.

Well, had Fast Coyote seriously believed what he was describing on those threads, ya better believe he would have only been making himself open to such mockery.

The problem is that for the first time in the history of our nation we have a POTUS candidate who openly beliefs the "faith of his fathers" -- which teaches that they are indeed "gods-in-embryo" about to transition into full-blown godhood.

What would be openly mocked if Mike Huckabee or Hillary Clinton believed this in 2008 is "ho hummed" by supposed Christian voters who say they oppose idolatry.

11 posted on 08/02/2012 3:55:41 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
What exactly is the point of this post. Is it to say that Mormonism has different beliefs than standard Christianity and that they sometimes have beliefs that are contradictory? So? Most religions do. Mormonism is a very new religion in the scheme of things. It is also a religion that is misunderstood and pilloried by many Christian religions. SO WHAT?

As A Roman Catholic, the original Christian Religion, I feel that Mormons have done nothing to harm me. They do not force people to follow their religion and they do good things in the community for both their fellow Mormons and to those not affiliated with their religion.

Romney is also a damn sight better than Obam, so I don't care if he was a dirt worshiper, he will still get my vote, more as a vote against O’Bumbler!

12 posted on 08/02/2012 3:57:48 PM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All; FastCoyote
From the article: ...it is drilled into them that their actions here on this earth really will affect their heavenly rewards hereafter. Speculation about what form those rewards might take is a perennial subject of mockery by critics of Mormonism. (“They think they’ll become gods! They’ll inherit their own planets!”)...

Well, the Bible DOES talk about those who are faithful with small things on earth may inherit greater responsibilities later. But it in no way talks about living forever in the presence of God the Father as linked to merit badges...as if "works-righteousness" was the ticket for that. Yet THAT is what Mormon theology teaches.

Mormons think of grace as primarily future-tense due to Book of Mormon passages like 2 Nephi 25:23 and Moroni 10:32...as mentioned in a previous post...it's like some after-burner will kick in to both "save" the Mormon and lead them to perfection.

The apostle Paul destroyed that nonsense:

...the gospel, by the power of God who has saved us and called us to a holy life—NOT because of anything WE have done BUT because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time... (2 Tim. 1:8-9)

The reality?
#1 We're saved by the character of graciousness exhibited by God as exercised in His Son, Jesus Christ; not the character of man.
#2 And to pre-empt complete boasting on man's part, 'twas done before the clocked ticked once. (That's why the apostle Paul said that if “works” served as man's way to God, WE could boast about how WE “worked” our way into God's presence – see Ephesians 2:8-9)

Think of all this w/this illustration:

Parental "grace" or "favor" extended by adopted parents is "grace" extended to all they adopt, right?

But say you adopted a 12 yo boy who no matter what "pure gift" you gave to him @ his birthday or Christmas time, he would absolutely insist that he "work" for it..."pay you back" for it...and even eventually billed himself for "room and board" during his teen years to "pay you back" for that, too...

Believe me, such a 'tude exhibited by the "pay-back boy" would get old soon enough. How many times would the father say to Himself, "You know this boy can never pay back how I reached into the darkest part of the world to rescue him; yet he thinks he can 'earn' his way into sonship." At some point, this legalism is going to become "offensive" to a Gracious Father -- just like it would if your adopted son could never simply "receive" gifts from you.

Bottom line: Does the above describe a grace-filled father-son relationship?; or is that a legalistic tit-for-tat campaign to "prove" himself "worthy" as if he was a mere "house tenant" -- instead of acting like a true adopted son?

The apostle Paul also made it clear to the Galatians that they could nullify grace. Consider these three passages he wrote to them:

Galatians 2:21:
I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing! [My note: If we de-magnify God's grace, we set it apart...and belittle the cross of Christ, which the Mormons don't honor, anyway]

Galatians 3:1-3: 1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?

Galatians 5:4: You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. [Example of grace nullification]

The apostle Paul also told the Romans – 11:5-6: 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then IT CANNOT BE BASED ON WORKS; IF IT WERE, GRACE WOULD NO LONGER BE GRACE. ***

Norm, Elz said three things in post #222 (what you're responding to here) -- the third of which is:
A MORMON president would 'authenticate' MORMONism in the eys of many; thus insuring their eventual destruction.

That has nothing to do with "religious liberty" issues...and everything to do with "spiritual bondage" issues.

Pure and simple, it's almost as if the book of Galatians was God's anticipated book specifically written for Mormons! Why? Well, not only because Mormons are our legalists of this era, but just look at these Galatians verses:

Mormonism is 'another gospel' -- supposedly delivered by 'an angel from heaven':

Galatians 1:6-9: 6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in 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 them be under God’s curse! 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 them be under God’s curse!

Justification by faith -- something Mormons say is replaced by 'works'

...know that a person is NOT justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and NOT by the works of the law, because by the works of the law NO ONE will be justified...21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” (Gal. 2:16, 21)

Faith or Works of the Law

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 the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? 4 Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your BELIEVING what you heard? 6 So also Abraham “BELIEVED God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 7 Understand, then, that those who have FAITH are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles BY FAITH, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” 9 So those who RELY ON FAITH are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. 10 For ALL who RELY on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do EVERYTHING written in the Book of the Law.” 11 Clearly NO ONE who RELIES on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live BY FAITH.” 12 The law is NOT based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that BY FAITH we might RECEIVE the promise of the Spirit. (Gal. 3:1-14)

Spiritual Legalism IS Bondage

7 So you are NO LONGER a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir. 8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods...we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman. 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. (Gal. 4:7-8, 31, 5:1)

The Book of Mormon preaches the exact opposite of justification by faith:

* 2 Nephi 25:23: ...ye are saved by grace, AFTER ALL YOU can DO." (2 Nephi 25:23)

* Helaman 12:24: "...may God grant, in his great fulness, that men might be brought unto repentance and good works, that they might be restored unto grace for grace, ACCORDING to their WORKS." (Helaman 12:24)

* Moroni 10:32: “Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and IF ye shall deny yourselves of ALL ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, THEN is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.”

The Mormon teaching is clear above:
(1) Grace doesn't kick in for the Mormon UNTIL he's done "ALL" he can do... (2 Nephi 25:23) (All spiritually, relationally, physically, emotionally, intellectually, etc.)
(2) Grace is handed out in Mormonism tit-for-tat -- "according to works" (Helaman 12:24) This redefines the very word as a "free gift"
(3) In Mormonism, you have to FIRST deny yourself of ALL ungodliness -- not just some -- and ALSO love God with ALL your might, mind and strength -- and THEN God's grace kicks in (Moroni 10:32)

Utter hopelessness is this religious legalism of despair.

13 posted on 08/02/2012 3:58:14 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

As a Christian minister, I absolutely reject the false teachings of Mormonism, a made-up, heretical religion. At the same time, I plan on voting for Mitt Romney. I’m only voting for a president, not a pastor.


14 posted on 08/02/2012 4:02:29 PM PDT by Charles Henrickson (Lutheran pastor, LCMS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian; All
I suggest that, if you truly believe in the Bible, you are not living up to what Jesus had to say.

Read the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

Read it carefully.

Jesus told us that those of other Faiths CAN put our own Faith to shame.

15 posted on 08/02/2012 4:04:08 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1raider1
None of this has anything to do with whether someone is a good or bad citizen of the US and does not diminish his right as a citizen to hold elective office in this country.

Well, the birthers may have a rather strong point in saying, "Hey, I'd settle for any ACTUAL CITIZEN running for POTUS this go-round." :)

But citizenship (beyond the Obama question) isn't normally a "rallying" when it comes to POTUS...if that was the case, Perot and Ron Paul and Donald Trump would have been all fine as POTUSES.

One key aspect of considering a POTUS candidate is discernment...A candidate vulnerable -- gullible -- to deception in what he deems to be THE MOST IMPORTANT area of his life...can readily find bleedover effects ... for example in foreign policy.

Discernment IS key when we're talking about THE leader of the free world.

...his right as a citizen to hold elective office in this country.

Well, who's contending vs. Romney's "right" to be on the GoP ballot? (I'm not)

Point 1- RELIGION: Religion IS NOT a qualification or disqualification for public office; but it's certainly one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, present position statements & rampant inconsistency of past position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc. Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution is aimed at the candidate (must be of a certain age and must have resided in our country for a certain number of years) and the government so that religion does not become a disqualification to keep somebody otherwise eligible for running for public office. Article VI, section 3, is not aimed at the voter. Otherwise, voters would have to 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates.

POINT 2 - ELIGIBILITY: Newsflash!! Every person on the ballot, & even most write-in candidates, have proper "qualifications" to not be excluded from office consideration (based upon religious grounds). Of course, millions of us have the "qualifications" to be considered a potential POTUS & shouldn't be excluded outright from a ballot because of the religion we hold! Nobody has a "Religious Ineligibility" tattoo on their forehead!

POINT 3- BOTTOM LINE: You don't, FSO, really want to join Lds "apostles" in their confusion by emphasizing words similar to "qualifications" (language within the Constitution) with words like "qualities." (language that’s NOT in the Constitution)...do you?

I focus on what voters base their votes on in the "real world": Qualities

Otherwise, Article VI says absolutely...
...nothing...
....nada...
...zero...
...about how voters must weigh--or not weigh--the "qualities" of a candidate...

16 posted on 08/02/2012 4:06:05 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

“I suggest that, if you truly believe in the Bible, you are not living up to what Jesus had to say.”

I suggest you have a selective reading of the totality of the Bible’s teaching about false religions.
You may try reading Peter and Paul, as well as reading of how Jesus treated those in the Temple who
were defiling it...


17 posted on 08/02/2012 4:07:16 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ("I'm comfortable with a Romney win." - Pres. Jimmy Carter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
There are over a Billion adherents to Islam in this World. They believe strange things including that a meteorite in Mecca is stained black from sin, yet it is not a cult.

The Catholic religion has over 1 billion adherents who believe that ordinary bread and wine a transformed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ during the consecration of the Mass and they are not a cult. From the outside ALL religions have strange beliefs. Faith is the belief Without proof.

18 posted on 08/02/2012 4:08:36 PM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town
As A Roman Catholic, the original Christian Religion, I feel that Mormons have done nothing to harm me. They do not force people to follow their religion and they do good things in the community for both their fellow Mormons and to those not affiliated with their religion.

(So if you had a daughter -- you would sanction her becoming a proselyte...marrying a Mormon man in the Mormon temple...and you would be cut off from seeing that marriage?)

(And, eternally speaking, you would sanction her belief that her husband would be a full-grown god -- and she would rule a new planet with him...and you would sanction your grandchildren believing this as well?)

19 posted on 08/02/2012 4:09:55 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town
Orthodoxy has you beat in the Number One position ~ the dispute that allowed RCs to consider themselves separately from the greater Christian community came much later.

leastwise that's the Orthodox view on the matter.

There are also a whole flock of groups who sought to revive the First Century church BTW. Those disputes don't enter into their theological viewpoints.

20 posted on 08/02/2012 4:10:17 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town
Mormonism is a very new religion in the scheme of things. It is also a religion that is misunderstood and pilloried by many Christian religions.

(I am a descendent of a Mormon leader and a relative of MANY Lds...I understand it quite well...because I go directly to their leaders' sources...and don't just only take what others have said second-hand about it...As a Catholic, you're not now becoming a Mormon apologist, are you?)

21 posted on 08/02/2012 4:12:06 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town

Not exactly sure what ALL the islamic theology is concerning the meteorite embedded in the wall of the building called the Kaaba, but they keep meteorites in reserve to replace it ~ they wear out!


22 posted on 08/02/2012 4:12:15 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Jesus Christ.

The Apostasy.

The Vatican IS a city-state for GOD’s sake.

And no one has ever turned away from that except for the
Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists....And ON AND ON AND ON.

Tell me one thing you did today that made someone’s life a little better.

Tell me about 50 of them. And I’ll give you an attaboy.

But this one aw sh!+ wipes away those 50 attaboys.


23 posted on 08/02/2012 4:13:22 PM PDT by bigheadfred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town

Islam is a totally separate religion.
Catholicism is part of Christianity.

Mormonism is a cultic and satanic perversion of Christianity.


24 posted on 08/02/2012 4:15:11 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ("I'm comfortable with a Romney win." - Pres. Jimmy Carter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town
Is it to say that Mormonism has different beliefs than standard Christianity and that they sometimes have beliefs that are contradictory? So? Most religions do.

If you were comparing Islam to Christianity...and you described Jihadist Islamic theology vs. the Christmas Jesus as "Peace on earth, goodwill to men"...would you seriously distinguish Jihadist vs. Jesus as Peace Incarnated as "Islam has different beliefs than standard Christianity???"

And would you "write off" huge contradictions in Mormonism as meaningless just because Hinduism and Islam also have huge contradictions?

Wow!

25 posted on 08/02/2012 4:15:11 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bigheadfred

I told the truth about a cult...whereas many non-Mormons on FR have become its converted apologists!


26 posted on 08/02/2012 4:16:32 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
The Samaritans, from anyone's point of view, were a variation on standard Judaism of the day ~ not a totally different belief.

But that's not the point of the parable ~ the first guy coming by had obligations, the second guy coming by had rules of purity, the third guy had none of those things but he had time to take the injured man to aid, and he paid for it himself!

It's really not about the differences between a Samaritan's form of worship and that of, for example, the HIgh Episcopaleans or Roman Catholics.

It's more about prioritizing your ethical code so that charity is first and the other stuff very secondary.

27 posted on 08/02/2012 4:16:42 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Ok, but there are many American voters who don’t want to have to vote for someone who, in their eyes, believes in an unseen. unheard, based on faith alone being whose only claim to existence are mostly some physically impossible occurances, touted as “miracles” by said believers.


28 posted on 08/02/2012 4:16:51 PM PDT by 1raider1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
You are absurd.

The Good Samaritan was almost certainly a PAGAN!

Yet Jesus held him in high regard.

Jesus was very hard on the “rules and regs” types of his time, Jesus had little patience with the Pharisees, or those that minded the Temple, you are correct.

And those who wished to stone the Adulteress? Jesus said, “You who are without sin, cast the first stone”.

Jesus will be very hard on those who do not understand these passages, in my opinion.

29 posted on 08/02/2012 4:17:18 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Take a look at Luke 10:18. It shows Satan was once part of the heavenly hosts before he was cast out of heaven having become perdition. Revelation 12:8 says the same thing. If all who were in heaven were not created by God, then who were they created by? Space aliens? So in as much as that’s true, then sure I guess Jesus and Satan have a familial connection as we all do—one long ago shattered when Satan rebelled and was cast out. That’s where any kind of relationship or comparison between the two ends. Christ is the personification of all that’s good and right. Satan is the personification of all that’s wrong and evil. Saying they were brothers, not really an official teaching of the church other than in a tangential way from the teaching of all being children of the same God, doesn’t mean Christ and Satan are at all comparable. And it doesn’t mean Mormons worship the devil. Kind of a silly and desperate thing to dredge up, don’t you think? It’s like saying if you believe in the brotherhood of all mankind and that we’re all children of God as I think most Christians do, that somehow you must believe Hitler and Jesus have something in common. It’s pretty much an intellectually deficient cheap-shot broadside in both instances.


30 posted on 08/02/2012 4:19:35 PM PDT by MissesBush (The Fourth Estate has Become a Fifth Column)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion; Kansas58
“I suggest that, if you truly believe in the Bible, you are not living up to what Jesus had to say.” [Kansas58]

I suggest you have a selective reading of the totality of the Bible’s teaching about false religions. You may try reading Peter and Paul, as well as reading of how Jesus treated those in the Temple who were defiling it... [AMPU]

Per this Catholicdefense Web site, which as a caveat, I am not endorsing overall...merely am quoting their historical quotes for easy access purposes: ...the Sadducees accepted only the first five Books of the Bible, the Torah, also known as the Law of Moses. We can know this from a number of early Church Fathers. St. Hippolytus of Rome (170-235 A.D.) said that the Sadducees “do not, however, devote attention to prophets, but neither do they to any other sages, except to the law of Moses only, in regard of which, however, they frame no interpretations.” Likewise, Origen (184-253) said that “although the Samaritans and Sadducees, who receive the books of Moses alone, would say that there were contained in them predictions regarding Christ, yet certainly not in Jerusalem, which is not even mentioned in the times of Moses, was the prophecy uttered.”

Theologically, the Samaritans -- whom you, Kansas58 reference -- were probably closest to the Sadducees (as Origen above references).

Even Jesus condemned the Sadducees at one point:

And to the Sadducees: Jesus replied, “You are IN ERROR because you DO NOT KNOW THE SCRIPTURES OR THE POWER OF GOD. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you... (Matt. 22:29-31)

To be consistent, then, Kansas re: your comment that "you are not living up to what Jesus had to say" -- you would have to likewise condemn Jesus for not living up to the "Kansas" version of "Jesus."

Kansas, are you guilty of trying to both outnice Jesus -- as well as condemning the historical Jesus for what He said in Matthew 22:29-31???

31 posted on 08/02/2012 4:25:08 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion; Kansas58
The URL, btw, of that catholicdefense quote came from here: http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-bible-did-sadducees-use.html

Again, NOT an endorsement of this site...just referenced it for easy access to a few historical quotes.

32 posted on 08/02/2012 4:26:36 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

The Constitution prohibit religious tests for holding public office. Mitt can belong to any freakish religion he chooses.


33 posted on 08/02/2012 4:29:53 PM PDT by IslandLad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
"I told the truth about a cult"

Truth is in the eye of the beholder. One must beware of a log blocking ones eyesight.

34 posted on 08/02/2012 4:31:41 PM PDT by norwaypinesavage (Galileo: In science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of one individual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
I stand corrected.
The Samaritans were not “Pagans” as I stated, but they certainly did not think that the Jewish Faith had remained Faithful to Moses.
Thank you.

My point, still, is that Jesus taught us to be tolerant of other faiths.

35 posted on 08/02/2012 4:32:55 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: IslandLad
The Constitution prohibit religious tests for holding public office. Mitt can belong to any freakish religion he chooses.

Who's denying miltie his right to run?

I can apply any test I choose in picking a candidate. Are you gonna rat me out to the po po?

36 posted on 08/02/2012 4:34:28 PM PDT by Graybeard58 (Free people, when presented only with evil choices, create other choices.(EternalVigilance))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

No he didn’t.


37 posted on 08/02/2012 4:34:58 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Nice people, but it’s a business and not a religion.


38 posted on 08/02/2012 4:36:14 PM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58; aMorePerfectUnion; muawiyah
I suggest that, if you truly believe in the Bible, you are not living up to what Jesus had to say. Read the Parable of the Good Samaritan...Jesus told us that those of other Faiths CAN put our own Faith to shame.

Well, #1 Kansas, Jesus complimented the actions of ONE Samaritan -- just like Jesus complimented the outward actions of the Pharisees (at one point).

#2...Have you ever read it -- very carefully -- Matthew 5:20???
Here is Jesus giving a great compliment to the outward "assets" of legalistic Pharisees...telling people that unless their righteousness exceeded that of the Pharisees & the teachers of the law, "you will certainly NOT enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:20).

So, does Jesus' compliment of the Pharisees in Matthew 5:20 = some wild interpretation (like YOU have come up with, Kansas), that it somehow precluded Jesus from EVER publicly critiquing the Pharisaic view of God????

Did Jesus take your seeming advice there, Kansas???? Did Jesus not "attack" the decent Jewish religion of the Pharisees?

Matthew 23, Jesus said:

25"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. 27"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. 28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

In fact, that whole 23rd chapter of Matthew is one long dissing of the Pharisees by Jesus.

In John 8, Jesus call the legalistic Pharisees "children of the devil."

I'll even "help" your Biblical discernment by citing all the other ways Jesus must have "failed" in your eyes...re: what he said to the Pharisees...next post...

39 posted on 08/02/2012 4:37:39 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58; IslandLad
The Constitution statement on religious tests applies ONLY to government ~ both state and federal.

It has no bearing on individual choice.

What's most interesting about that clause is it was devised to STOP the Quakers in Pennsylvania from imposing a test on people running for Congress. The laws there required you to be a Quaker to run for office.

40 posted on 08/02/2012 4:38:48 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58; aMorePerfectUnion; muawiyah
I suggest that, if you truly believe in the Bible, you are not living up to what Jesus had to say. Read the Parable of the Good Samaritan...Jesus told us that those of other Faiths CAN put our own Faith to shame.

So...does Jesus' compliment of the Pharisees in Matthew 5:20...is that a parallel of sorts here? Does that preclude Jesus from ever having uttered the following??? Jesus also complimented at one point the Pharisees.

Matt. 15:9: But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Matt. 16:12: ...guard against the yeast...against the TEACHING of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Luke 11:52: ... you have taken away the key to knowledge.
John 8:44,47: You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies…The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.
Matthew 23:2-4: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

Mark 7:6-8,13: He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 7 They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’ 8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.” …13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

Matthew 23:2-7, 13-34 : 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. 5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.
13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.
16 “Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’ 17 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18 You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gift on the altar is bound by that oath.’ 19 You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 Therefore, anyone who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And anyone who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22 And anyone who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it.

23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

25 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

27 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

29 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!

33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.

Kansas58, are you trying to outnice Jesus????

41 posted on 08/02/2012 4:39:53 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

You told the truth as you perceive it.

I simply have a value set I WILL DIE FOR.

And in that my perception of what you are using this medium for is just not right.

Think of it not as me defending the Mormons. Think of it as me defending you.


42 posted on 08/02/2012 4:40:29 PM PDT by bigheadfred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6
Nice people, but it’s a business and not a religion.

The VATICAN IS A CITY STATE.

Now make a crack about bizness.

43 posted on 08/02/2012 4:43:45 PM PDT by bigheadfred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: IslandLad; 1raider1
The Constitution prohibit religious tests for holding public office. Mitt can belong to any freakish religion he chooses.

Who is telling Mitt what religion he can can't belong to??? (I haven't heard of any movement saying Mitt can't practice Mormonism)

Voters can vote using any freakish criteria they want to!

Ya know, islandlad...I once read an Lds news release that said: The framers of our constitution included a provision that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” (Article VI). That constitutional principle forbids a religious test as a legal requirement...

This release was part of a discussion by Lds "apostle" Dallin Oaks.

I'm afraid you -- like Mr. Oaks...misconstrues candidacy eligibility issues.

All the constitution says is that an eligible candidate cannot be kept from running on religious test grounds.

Ya know, even Mr. Oaks recognized how ludicrous some of his rhetoric was sounding and needed to offset it a bit with a qualifier: "...but it of course leaves citizens free to cast their votes on the basis of any preference they choose."

So...here's a Constitutional "primer" for you so that you don't keep exporting confusion to others:

Point 1- RELIGION: Religion IS NOT a qualification or disqualification for public office; but it's certainly one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, present position statements & rampant inconsistency of past position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc. Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution is aimed at the candidate (must be of a certain age and must have resided in our country for a certain number of years) and the government so that religion does not become a disqualification to keep somebody otherwise eligible for running for public office. Article VI, section 3, is not aimed at the voter. Otherwise, voters would have to 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates.

POINT 2 - ELIGIBILITY: Newsflash!! Every person on the ballot, & even most write-in candidates, have proper "qualifications" to not be excluded from office consideration (based upon religious grounds). Of course, millions of us have the "qualifications" to be considered a potential POTUS & shouldn't be excluded outright from a ballot because of the religion we hold! Nobody has a "Religious Ineligibility" tattoo on their forehead!

POINT 3- BOTTOM LINE: You don't, FSO, really want to join Lds "apostles" in their confusion by emphasizing words similar to "qualifications" (language within the Constitution) with words like "qualities." (language that’s NOT in the Constitution)...do you?

I focus on what voters base their votes on in the "real world": Qualities

Otherwise, Article VI says absolutely...
...nothing...
....nada...
...zero...
...about how voters must weigh--or not weigh--the "qualities" of a candidate...

Nowhere does Article VI say that voters MUST 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates!

"Qualifications" have to do with what gets a man on a ballot. "Qualities" has to do with who gets elected.

(Even 94-95% of Mormons -- most voting upon the fellow personal "qualities" of a candidate like Romney -- can tell you that!)

Btw, islandlad, why aren't you lecturing Lds voters if anywhere from 88% to 95% of Mormons will only vote for a Mormon?

(For some reason, the "Article 6 Religious Test" lecture tour never seems to hit Utah, Nevada, Southwest Wyoming or Southern Idaho)

44 posted on 08/02/2012 4:43:55 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Very well.

Your expertise is evident, and my details were in error.

However? My point stands: Jesus was NOT preaching to Samaritans when he brought up the Good Samaritan.

His POINT, then, was HUMILITY! (As well as Charity)


45 posted on 08/02/2012 4:44:30 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

To: RIghtwardHo

With the fullest of respect to all, I think if R knelt down and prayed to a toilet (or, yes, multiple toilets), he’d still be a lot better for America than the alternative.


47 posted on 08/02/2012 4:56:01 PM PDT by faithhopecharity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Anybody but Obama.


48 posted on 08/02/2012 4:56:10 PM PDT by CaptainK (...please make it stop. Shake a can of pennies at it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissesBush
Take a look at Luke 10:18. It shows Satan was once part of the heavenly hosts before he was cast out of heaven having become perdition. Revelation 12:8 says the same thing. If all who were in heaven were not created by God, then who were they created by? Space aliens?

Thank you, MissesBush for your civil response. This is indeed a good question, especially from an Lds perspective.

If you want, I can cite in another post several verses from the Lds standard works -- including the D&C...see, for example, D&C 93:9-10 -- which cites Jesus as being the "Creator." [One key difference in how Lds use this term -- vs. Christians -- is that Lds believe that Jesus and the Father "organized" things into existence from eternal matter; vs. Christians who cite the book of Hebrews and say that God/Jesus created all "out of nothing" (ex nihilo)].

The key verses I would point you to re: your question is from the apostle Paul to the Colossians: 15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him ALL things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether THRONES OR POWERS OR RULERS OR AUTHORITIES; ALL things have been created THROUGH HIM and for him... (Col. 1)

We know that Paul is including even the fallen angels in Col. 1:16 -- because he references them in the same way in Eph. 6: 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

Jesus created Lucifer, MissesBush. He is Lucifer's creator -- not simply a fellow "creature" to Lucifer as Mormons teach.

Now how do we know that Mormon leaders have taught Jesus to be a "creature" (as well as an organizer)???

The 'Mormon' Jesus: "Christ is a saved being” (lds "apostle" McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol. 3, p 257)

“Modern revelation speaks of our Lord as he that ‘ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth‘ (D&C 88:6). Christ's rise to the throne of exaltation was preceded by his descent below all things. Only by submitting to the powers of demons and death and hell could he, in the resurrection, serve as our exemplar of a saved being... (McConkie and Millet, Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, vol. 1, p. 234)

Please also see...
* McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol. 3, p. 238 where he said the Mormon "jesus" "Needs salvation...Came to earth to work out His own salvation)
* McConkie, "The Seven Deadly Heresies,' in Speeches of the Year, 1980 [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1981] p. 78 where he said: "There was only one perfect being, the Lord Jesus. If men had to be perfect and live all of the law strictly, wholly, and completely, there would be only one saved person in eternity." [cited in Come, Follow Me: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide 1983 (1983) p. 72]

I'm sorry, but the real Christ did not need to "work out His own salvation" as Lds apostles teach; in fact, He is THE Savior of the world: And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be THE Savior of the world. (1 John 4:14; cf. John 4:42).

49 posted on 08/02/2012 4:56:15 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK
Anybody but Obama.

(That's why I'm voting for Virgil Goode...he, too, qualifies under the umbrella of "anybody" ... and isn't a pro-abort liberal big-govt socialist healthcare pioneer like Mitt...)

Or were you just using "ABO" like most FREEPERs do -- euphemistically...meaning it's not really "anybody" but Obama...ONLY Romney...???

(And don't tell me there's ONLY two choices...'cause, frankly, I can rattle off 15 states in which Romney HAS NO choice -- as of this hour -- of winning...because of the liberal nature of those states...plus I can name you 23 OTHER states in which if 100% of Freepers voted for Virgil Goode, Obama STiLL wouldn't win those states...hence...only the voters in genuine swing states are more "locked in" to Romney)

50 posted on 08/02/2012 5:00:18 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-177 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson