|This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.|
Locked on 12/07/2008 11:35:59 AM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
Skip to comments.An Ugly Attack on Mormons
Posted on 12/03/2008 8:59:31 AM PST by Publius804
An Ugly Attack on Mormons
The easiest targets for an organized campaign against religious freedom of conscience.
By Jonah Goldberg
Did you catch the political ad in which two Jews ring the doorbell of a nice working-class family? They barge in and rifle through the wifes purse and then the mans wallet for any cash. Cackling, they smash the daughters piggy bank and pinch every penny. We need it for the Wall Street bailout! they exclaim.
No? Maybe you saw the one with the two swarthy Muslims who knock on the door of a nice Jewish family and then blow themselves up?
No? Well, then surely you saw the TV ad in which two smarmy Mormon missionaries knock on the door of an attractive lesbian couple. Hi, were from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints! says the blond one with a toothy smile. Were here to take away your rights. The Mormon zealots yank the couples wedding rings from their fingers and then tear up their marriage license.
As the thugs leave, one says to the other, That was too easy. His smirking comrade replies, Yeah, what should we ban next? The voice-over implores viewers: Say no to a church taking over your government.
Obviously, the first two ads are fictional because no one would dare run such anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim attacks.
The third ad, however, was real. It was broadcast throughout California on Election Day as part of the effort to rally opposition to Proposition 8, the initiative that successfully repealed the right to same-sex marriage in the state.
What was the reaction to the ad? Widespread condemnation? Scorn? Rebuke? Tepid criticism?
The Los Angeles Times, a principled opponent of Proposition 8, ran an editorial lamenting that the hard-hitting commercial was too little, too late.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
They all believed in 225,000 gods? (Well, that's a new one!)
Cute! They believed man could become a God. By inference, that probably means a lot more than 225,000.
BTW, it’s obviously not a new one at all.
You will soon see that DU is very selective when ever he cites something. Especially when he takes liberty with history. Take the following for instance:
Constantine, who called the first council at Nicea and with a combination of bribes, and threats got the church to agree on a creed that all of Rome could unite behind. This was his expressed purpose according to records he had kept of the event.
If you follow his link you will find the following:
"The emperor himself, in very respectful letters, begged the bishops of every country to come promptly to Nicaea. .......In order to expedite the assembling of the Council, the emperor placed at the disposal of the bishops the public conveyances and posts of the empire; moreover, while the Council lasted he provided abundantly for the maintenance of the members. "
Try as one may, one will not see the term - bribed or threat used in any variant form. DUs continues the spin as follows:
In spite of Christianity being illegal, it had grown in popularity (or maybe even because it was illegal) Constantine sends letters to these bishops (who are under a death sentence just for being Christians) and invites them to a conference,
Is there truth in this statement? Not in the least. Following his coming to power, Christianity was legalized by the Edict of Milan, early in 313 - that is twelve (12) years before the Nicean conference. This is a an example of typical mormon amateur apologetics who expects that his statements will go unchallenged. Next he will try to present a little truth.
However, there are a few conditions, he wants a definition of God that everyone can accept, and thus we have the Greek religions influence in to the Nicene Creed.
Correct, Constantine wanted the strife to stop. But is this hellenistic influence? Arianism was at its core Platoism. The Arian conception of Christ as neither truly God nor truly man but an ontological in-between. Platonism, in its various forms, postulated the existence of such a mediator because it could not accept a direct contact or union between the Transcendent Divine Reality and Creation. It was this intermediate that Arius developed his heresy upon. Jehovah's witnesses carry this heresy to its conclusion - a kindred spirit for DU.
But now for the rest of the story. DU would have you believe that Constantine instituted the Trinity doctrine into the church. History reveals that the opposite is true. Arius friend Eusibius was a friend of Constantine, Emperor of Rome. He persuaded Constantine defend Arius. Constantine was baptized as an Arian. The Arians were anti-Trinitarians. The change in the church was not as the result of the Council of Nicaea. At the council, the historic position of the church was affirmed and written into a creed. It was after this council that historic Christianity was exiled and replaced with the Arian heresy.
Also, the Nicean Creed that breeds such bile from DU wasn't formulated in its current form until Council of Constantinople (381) - some 56 years later. So jibaholic, and any other lurker present, it is clear that the history has been misrepresented by DU.
New King James; but Mormons take most of their beliefs from Joseph Smith’s teachings. They consider Jesus satan’s brother.
The defense would say, Irrelevant, Your honor! Not that living the commandments is an irrelevant issue in our lives...it's just we don't disagree on the need to do that. Living the commandments just isn't a 1:1 correlation of how God's grace interacts with us! In fact, your next statement of A key component of grace is that we don't always live the commandments. was closer to what I'm talking about than what your LDS teachngs zero in on...I have several examples, but here are two 1:1 correlation LDS teachings I vehemently disagree with:
Grace is granted to men proportionately as they conform to the standards of personal righteousness... (LDS apostle Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 339)
No, it isn't, Bruce!! Men don't force God's gracious hand!!! (Can you imagine a Mormon leader saying, An earthly father's Christmas gifts are granted to their children proportionately as they conform to the family standards of personal righteousness? That would be an outrageous conclusion!) Yet LDSaints don't seem to bat an eyelash over this kind of misunderstanding as to what grace is!
And then the second LDS doctrinal reference:And when we obtain ANY blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated. (D&C 130:21)
Once again, instead of focusing on the inner nature of God's goodness as the motivating factors here, Mormons force God's hand of blessings by pointing to their obedience as the trigger of those blessings, NOT as God's lovingkindness or provision or mercy or grace! God is motivated more by His inner benificence more than any external motivators combined could collectively come up with!
We are all saved via the atonement & His grace....We believe all will be saved through that atonement (save the sons of perdition), however, not all will receive all that he has. Therein lies the rub.
OK, this is where your rather loose tossing around of the word saved confuses lurkers. They see these lines and think, Oh, they're more biblical than I thought. So, let me clear that up for them:
(1) When LDS talk about all saved -- they basically mean ALL or close to it minus the sons of perdition. It's a near-universalism where just about everybody will have their own kingdom.
But what did Jesus say? ...wide is the road that leads to destruction. Narrow is the way that leads to life... [I don't think destruction is a degree of salvation. Do you, Reno?]
(2) When LDS use save in this manner, they are talking about their article of faith which talks about how Christ died to save people from the effects of original sin. Imagine it's 1800 and you're on one side of the Grand Canyon and disabled due to an inherited disease and no way to get around it to the other side. The Mormon Jesus arrives where you are, takes away the effects of your inherited disease, and then announces, I now pronounce you with free agency! (But you still need to get to the other side of the canyon minus any supernatural bridge). Of course I'll help you out. But NOT UNTIL you've done ALLYOU CAN DO.
Even Reno says to emphasize this above point that Christ is the One that takes us the rest of the way through the atonement but not by us doing nothing... So, how did Reno and how do Mormons retwist Jesus? Jesus said, I am the Way (John 14:6). Mormons say, Jesus is the rest of the Way (after ALL you can do). And what happens if you DON'T DO ALL you can do? Well, there's no promise of salvation there at least not if it's not enough to command the attention of God's grace. Hence, why LDS constantly use the word worthiness.
Now, of course, men can make their way around the Grand Canyon. But Jesus never said, I am the Way, but make your own way. (And, now try to imagine you spanning the eternal gap of our filthy rags coming to live eternally with an all-holy perfect God who made Moses remove his profane sandals in his presence...what's worse, would be a filthy-ragged man appearing unto God claiming, Yup, Heavenly Father. I've done all I can do. See my wonderful wardrobe? Isn't it lovely?)
Heavenly Father would reply. Did you not read my apostle's words? 'For all have fallen short of the glory of God.'
Trying to bridge the gap of the canyon between our glory or His on the basis of our own righteousness is foolishness, when Jesus Himself offers to be our substitute righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30).
Why is your version & understanding of grace only the correct interpretation...
OK, maybe you're asking a question here that's meant differently than how I'm about to answer it, but what if I asked you, Why is your version & understanding of joy only the correct interpretation? You see, I just don't see many wildly vascillating definitions out there for joy. When people sing, Joy to the World @ Christmas, they are often joyous! We don't see them debate as to different interpretations of joy. Or maybe a better example would be peace. You might ask, Why is your version & understanding of peace only the correct interpretation? While, yes, there might be more definitions of peace out there than joy, still, I can come back to you with an answer of: Well, Jesus said 'peace I give to you' a 'peace not of this world' and Paul later added it was a 'peace that transcended all understanding.' So what's there to correctly or incorrectly interpret? Peace is from Jesus; not the world; it's beyond our human comprehension.
Likewise, with grace, I can say: Paul said grace saves; not works; if it were works, we could boast about how our own works saved us -- a paraphrase of Ephesians 2:8-9. Besides that, no Biblical scholars debate what grace means. It means gift (as in something rec'd for free) So my questions to you are:
Why do you keep trying to pay for that which is given freely?
Why do you adhere to McConkie's proportionate tit-for-tat payback grace? (as if those 2 contradictory terms could even ever be used without totally distorting language).
Why do you believe in a religion that says only your obedience prompts God's blessings? -- D&C 130:21.
that of your Christian brethren that disagree wrong?
Hey, if people want to say grace doesn't mean gift -- I guess they can write their own new dictionary...be it English or Greek.
Many Christian churches believe in Grace & works which is contrary to your assertions. Who's correct & why?
Well, you've turned the order around. For the 2 Nephi 25:23 adhering Mormon, it's not grace & works, it's actually works & maybe...well, I hope...we-certainly-are-trying-for-grace...if we can just nail that 'ALL' part. Listen, for the Mormon, if you don't have the works down, you ain't gonna get the grace. It's that simple. Now, tell me. Which of your alleged Many Christian churches believe that? (I don't know of any) None of them embrace 2 Nephi 25:23 which all rests upon two key words of ALL and AFTER. (Clue: ALL means ALL and AFTER means AFTER)
So, the true Mormon formula is: Works According to Ability (ALL you can do) + a hoped-for God-govt. Bailout somewhere down the line provided you're not on the verge of moral or spiritual bankruptcy like GM or Ford...and provided you're able to prove that every member in your company (body) did everything they could do...no time-wasting...no surfin' porn sites...no...well, you get the picture.
The Christian churches I know operate more on the following model: You're a young man. You're broke. You'd like to serve your community, but the boss you've talking to tells you that you need a car to do that. You need mobility. So you're dad gives you a car. He gives it to you. He doesn't say, you need to be a worthy son first...nor does he give you a gift proportionate to what you've done. Modeling himself after the father of the prodigal son, nor does He bless you only according to your level of obedience. He graces you with a free car. You are now empowered to carry out all those good acts within the community. In fact, your Father wants you to be so continually dependent upon His ongoing and freely available grace, that He gives you a credit card for gas purchases so that you fully realize that even your energy to get around is fully funded by Him. Now you don't just sit at home after he's equipped with you car & energy. You drive around and perform your good works. But who gets the glory for what's done? You? As Jesus said in one of his parables about servants, you only did what you were told to do. I mean that's what servants do. Our role isn't to glorify ourselves and make us look good as future gods. Grace empowers us to good works. Faith is the root; works are the fruit. Works are a by-product of our relationship with Heavenly Father & the Son they are not the source of it!
Mormons can believe what they want. I have no problem with any of it until they call themselves Christians. That they are not, in the traditional sense.
Back to the mis-definition of theosis. None of the above would accept the mormon definition. Especially C.S. Lewis.
> Mormons can believe what they want. I have no problem with any of it until they call themselves Christians. That they are not, in the traditional sense.
in your opinion. I doubt that God has given you the exclusive Franchise to decide who is or is not a Christian, therefore it is really just a matter of your word against theirs.
IMO it is wiser for you (and me) to decide that WE are Christian and leave it to God to decide who else is. One thing that we know for sure: we will be surprised by who else He has chosen.
“If you have read very many of these threads, you will see an outpouring of hate against the protestors that is astonishing.”
I am astonished by the outpouring of hate from the homosexuals.
I am astonished when they think they have the “right” to disrupt church services - scream “f you!” - and desecrate the eucharist at catholic masses.
They want the bible to be declared hate literature.
Catholic adoption agencies have closed doors because they won’t recognize so-called gay “marriage.”
Go ahead and have pity for the “f you!” crowd along with all their hatred, profanity, and vulgarity.
I will not be joining you.
You once again further show your ignorance of our beliefs by stating that “It's a near-universalism where just about everybody will have their own kingdom.” Not everyone will have their own kingdom, although everyone will be put into a kingdom dependent upon their works as described in 1 Corinthians 15:40-42 where the Lord clearly talks about the Resurrection unto those three kingdoms, but they will not necessarily be their own kingdom. You were a member, & you don't know this basic principle? Maybe that's why you fell away, you never knew the basic tenants of the gospel.
As far as the grace vs. works issue is concerned, how do you explain Matt. 25:31-46?
31 ¶ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Now, here the Lord is talking about the judgment. He talks about the sheep on His right who have done WORKS unto their fellow men & they would “inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world”. Then, He talks about the goats & how they had not done WORKS unto their fellow man, “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal”.
Both the sheep & the goats BELIEVED in the Lord, but only those that did the WORKS unto their fellow man received life eternal. Where does He say here that as long as one believes, it doesn't matter what works you do for your fellow man, His grace alone will be sufficient for life eternal & to inherit the kingdom prepared for them?
Let's now turn to Titus 1:16.
16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
He says “They profess that they know God”, in other words, they have faith in Him, but then He says, “but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate”. How did they DENY Him? IN WORKS!
Again, explain how grace trumps works according to the Lord IN HIS OWN WORDS in these scriptures.
Of course, these are just 2 of a myriad of scriptures I could/have cited to you that talk about the import of works in relation to the final judgment. These would seem very clear to me & many others here I presume. You obviously have a very different opinion. I would ask once again, why is your opinion the correct one & mine wrong, & how do you know definitively? Certainly you can see there are scriptures that contradict your assertions.
it is easy to forget the “hate literature” battle that took place in Canada not too long ago...
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)It's straight from the Bible, that's why we believe it.
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?So God is the Father of Spirits...
4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;So Satan was once an angel, and was cast out of heaven.
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.So angels have Spirits and can call God Father.
34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.So Satan was once an angel, Angels have a spirit, and God is the father of Spirits, also Jesus is "The Son of God" therefore,according to the Bible, they are brothers. We believe the Bible, so.... we believe that Jesus and Satan can be called brothers just like everyone who believes the Bible.
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.