What makes 'Smithmas' Smithmas? [Vanity]

...for just one week out of respect for the fulfillment of God's promise to us through the birth of His Son? It's Christmas, people!

And hey, don't stop with Dickens' publisher, either.

50 years ago this year, the vocal director for the Andy Williams Show wrote one of the "standards" now for the Christmas season: "It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year"

I mean, toward the end of the song...there's this one line that just seems to be similarly "mistimed" for Christmas:

There'll be parties for hosting Marshmallows for toasting And caroling out in the snow There'll be scary ghost stories And tales of the glories of Christmases long, long ago

I'll betcha that line just gets your goat every Christmas season, and you've probably sent missives to all those celebrity singers who keep "making it their own" for their Christmas release, eh?

Wow! Scary ghost stories at Christmas time! What next?

I can’t help but to notice that you ignored my question.

It was intentional. Your question was insincere.

I guess it’s safe to say that your a relativist, much like the liberals, and don’t care about the eternal state of lost?

It's safe to say that you know nothing about me nor do you care to find out. It is much easier for you to assign me into some category so that you can justify your own closed-mindedness and ignore your own shortcomings.

Do you believe that the LDS is a legitimate church

Is this one of those relativist questions, such as legitimate as compared to Southern Baptists for example? Legitimate? What in the heck is that supposed to mean? A church is a congregation of sinners, so if we are to assume Mormons are sinners, wouldn't it qualify?

and that those who believe in its tenets are saved

It is not up to me to declare them saved. That's God's job. It is totally up to Him. Not you. Not me. But Him. So I will defer you to Him. Ask Him. See what He says.

“Is this one of those relativist questions, such as legitimate as compared to Southern Baptists for example? Legitimate? What in the heck is that supposed to mean? A church is a congregation of sinners, so if we are to assume Mormons are sinners, wouldn’t it qualify?”

With such logic we can say: The New atheist ‘churches’ popping up are no different than the Southern Baptists. But the Southern Baptists are going to heaven, and the Atheists are going to hell. And why is that? Because we have scripture that tells us ‘Whoever does not believe, is condemned already.”

It’s not an arrogant claim. It’s straight out what the Holy scripture teaches. It’s a fact. It’s reality. It’s the reason to get up in the morning and preach, or do SOMETHING, unless you are OK with their fate. Similarly, when Paul says that any who preach a false Gospel are ‘accursed,” why should we not consider the LDS as no different than a congregation of atheists? So they claim to be Christian, so what?

Unless you believe that Polytheism, the doctrine of becoming a God of your own planet, their temple rituals, sacred underwear, their universalism, and merit based soteriology (in the sense that you go to a lower heaven if you’re bad, but you can become a God if you’re good), are all doctrines which Paul would not have called a “false” Gospel. In which case, I can understand your position. It’s logical, then, not to care. But if you do NOT believe that, then why are you attacking people who take from it the logical reaction?

“Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”

“So I will defer you to Him. Ask Him. See what He says.”

Well that’s simple, you can do that by READING THE BIBLE. You can just open it up and read “There is only one God,” and then turn to Mormonism and read “There are many gods, and you can become one IF you follow our secret formula spelled out here in the BOM, the D&C, and in our temples, provided you pay the low low price of a 10 percent required tithe!” and then come up to a fair conclusion about the latter’s Christianity, right?

If not, why not? Can you answer that question? Or is it “insincere”?

Remember, (gotta loop you back to your original objection) the "issue" you had again was the "timing" of this thread.

Actually, the 'issue' is your incessant battle of legalism against Mormons - a point which I have made known to you repeatedly. I had just hoped that for a few days you could put aside your campaign and instead embrace the love that Christ represents during the season marking where God's promise to us was fulfilled. It has never been about the timing. It has always been about the heart that goes behind it. And at a time where hearts all over the world - Christian and non-Christian alike - are touched by this season of gratitude and giving, here you are still stuck in a battle of bigotry with no concept of expressing the love that Christ represents.

Seriously, can you picture Jesus initiating thread after thread after thread bashing the Samaritans? You have been at this longer than the duration of Jesus' entire ministry.

“You have clouded the line between ‘church’ and ‘church member’. Looks like I touched a nerve with that Southern Baptist comment though. I noticed you bypassed Mormons and went straight to the atheist card in order to justify your position. It is quite telling.”

Well sure, it’s “quite telling” if your entire argument is built around a hallucination. Bringing up the Southern Baptists could only “hit a nerve” if there was actually anything meaningful or useful on your part in saying it. It only works if you are expecting me to be a Relativist who thinks it doesn’t matter what you Confess as a Christian to be saved. I didn’t just “bypass Mormons,” I equated them with Atheists straight out, which is quite valid, though you have bypassed LDS beliefs, which is what is really “quite telling’!

Can you please answer my questions instead of continually dodging around them? IS Polytheism an acceptable Christian belief? Yes or no? Or it doesn’t even have to be Yes or No. Answer however you like. Just... you know, just answer, please.

... can you picture Jesus initiating thread after thread after thread bashing the Samaritans?

Well, yet again, you have trouble distinguishing between teachings (which is what I've primarily focused upon) vs. people.

I had just hoped that for a few days you could put aside your campaign...

Hoodat, most of the world -- especially the retail world -- works on these very days leading up to Christmas. That includes a high % of Christians. They hardly set aside whatever laborious "campaign" they are addressing.

.. can you picture Jesus initiating thread after thread after thread bashing the Samaritans?

Well, then apply your own standard to yourself: Today, I then could be that "Samaritan" you have in mind. Can you picture Jesus initiating post after post after post bashing me, your given Samaritan?

Let's "measure" your "Christmas love" exhibited toward me, your token Samaritan:

Four posts to me today; two posts about me...

In 6 posts, you've managed...
...six references to me about "hating" (with no specific accusation as to which words were exactly "hateful");
...two references to being judgmental (again, without any specifics)
...one reference to "bile" (again, without any specifics)
...one reference to "slander" (again, without any specifics)
...one reference to being "legalistic" (again, without any specifics)
...one reference to being a "basher"
...and one reference to "bigotry"

So, you MUST be conveying that This is "What Jesus Would do" @ Christmas-time on FR, eh?

He would go around and resort to shotgun generic blasts, launching into full-blown accusatory mode -- a baker's dozen of them -- all in a handful of words?

So which Jesus do you represent, after all?

Well, thanks Hoodat for all of your personal accusatory Christmas card greetings to me today...But you may want to consider living up to your "Samaritan-treatment" standard before you continue using that as a pulpit metaphor in the future...

(I also suggest you start warning people before you send out your chafing, grazing, scraping rather raw personal Christmas cards...or did you just single me out -- your "token Samaritan" for the day -- to send such greetings?)

But, no mind. Merry Christmas to you. May God's blessings in Christ pour out upon you and your family!

Jesus loves you.

Whether they are in a state of salvation or not is totally up to God. But the bottom line here is that sin is sin. Consider a person who is too afraid to admit the truth about something bad they have done. Is that person saved? Or is that person lost until they repent of their fear? Likewise, is the Southern Baptist who practices idolatry by putting his trust in money rather than in God in his daily affairs - has this person lost his state of salvation as well?

And if you are to pose this question to the individual person as you have done so here, then where is the segue from the mindset of the individual to the Mormon Church as a whole?

In 6 posts, you've managed... ...six references to me about "hating" (with no specific accusation as to which words were exactly "hateful"); ...two references to being judgmental (again, without any specifics) ...one reference to "bile" (again, without any specifics) ...one reference to "slander" (again, without any specifics) ...one reference to being "legalistic" (again, without any specifics) ...one reference to being a "basher" ...and one reference to "bigotry"

Sounds just like the tactics the gay leftists run to when they want to label outspoken conservatives as "homophobes".

Doesn't it?

“Whether they are in a state of salvation or not is totally up to God. But the bottom line here is that sin is sin. Consider a person who is too afraid to admit the truth about something bad they have done. Is that person saved? Or is that person lost until they repent of their fear? Likewise, is the Southern Baptist who practices idolatry by putting his trust in money rather than in God in his daily affairs - has this person lost his state of salvation as well?”

A false premise, since a Christian is a person who is not perfect, who is not always full of faith, but quite simply a believer in Jesus Christ. No sin can separate a Christian from His maker, and all those whom the Lord has given to the Son, do come to the Son, infallibly:

Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

To compare the Elect of God to an unbeliever is apples and oranges. The elect are regenerated members of the body of Christ, even when they are weak, even when they are flawed. A Mormon has never been born again, nor has an atheist, and no one who is not born again can ever see the Kingdom of God.

“And if you are to pose this question to the individual person as you have done so here, then where is the segue from the mindset of the individual to the Mormon Church as a whole?”

But when we talk about beliefs, we are referring to what members of the LDS are accepting from their church. If there is a Mormon who does not believe Mormon teaching, it would be strange for Him to be a member, but then we could say that He has been regenerated and will eventually come out of the LDS, since “All that the Father has given” will come to the Son. No true member of the body of Christ can remain in any fatal error.

The question is, IS Paul correct when He declares that anyone who teaches another Gospel is accursed? If Paul is correct, then Mormonism is a damnable religion, and we, as Christians, have a duty to expose this false religious system.

Well, yet again, you have trouble distinguishing between teachings (which is what I've primarily focused upon) vs. people.

You directly cited 'Mormons' as the targets of your criticism in your lead post.

Well, then apply your own standard to yourself: Today, I then could be that "Samaritan" you have in mind. Can you picture Jesus initiating post after post after post bashing me, your given Samaritan?

No. I can't picture him initiating thread after thread either (as I had originally said).

Let's "measure" your "Christmas love" exhibited toward me, your token Samaritan:

You are not my token Samaritan. Besides, God has it covered.

In 6 posts, you've managed... ...six references to me about "hating" (with no specific accusation as to which words were exactly "hateful");

In reviewing my posts, I came upon the term 'hatred' which appeared in two duplicitous posts. The term 'hating' was not used, thus no specific incident was implied. This of course differs from your account where you included the word 'hating' in full quotes, citing six separate references of its usage. That's quite a discrepancy with what actually occurred.

So, you MUST be conveying that This is "What Jesus Would do" @ Christmas-time on FR, eh?

I can't picture Jesus ever posting on Free Republic. It's not in His nature.

So which Jesus do you represent, after all?

The same one that you do.

Well, thanks Hoodat for all of your personal accusatory Christmas card greetings to me today...But you may want to consider living up to your "Samaritan-treatment" standard before you continue using that as a pulpit metaphor in the future...

Be sure to bring that to my attention the next time I initiate an anti-Colofornian thread.

May God's blessings in Christ pour out upon you and your family!

Thank you, and a double portion upon yours.

Jesus loves you.

Yes, isn't it wonderful?

Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

"...six references to me about "hating" (with no specific accusation as to which words were exactly "hateful");
"...two references to being judgmental (again, without any specifics)
...one reference to "bile" (again, without any specifics)
...one reference to "slander" (again, without any specifics)
...one reference to being "legalistic" (again, without any specifics)
...one reference to being a "basher"
...and one reference to "bigotry"

Unfortunately all of those references are completely true and distinctly anti-christian in nature.

Don't think the convenient snipping before and after anything that might show your subject in a positive light hasn't gone unnoticed.

You said you have a "ministry". A "ministry" of what I might ask?

Are you unable to show the positive teachings of your church leaders? Show the history of your church for the last 2000 years and how it was passed down to your current church?

Is there not enough positive light there that you can point to that would make someone leap at the chance to join it? Is that the problem?

I mean if your doctrine is correct, the Holy Ghost will testify of it to anyone that would receive it and they would be converted. No problem.

But the fact that your ministry is all about creatively showing me in the most unflattering and negative light you can come up with, well, is a testimony to me that you got nothing...

In reviewing my posts, I came upon the term 'hatred' which appeared in two duplicitous posts. The term 'hating' was not used, thus no specific incident was implied. This of course differs from your account where you included the word 'hating' in full quotes, citing six separate references of its usage. That's quite a discrepancy with what actually occurred.

Oh, then somebody must have assumed your keyboard when in posts #46 & #48 at this thread -- Posts to Trebb & JimT -- you told Trebb:
"Amen to EVERYTHING you said."
And then told Jim: "Ditto"

What? You didn't read what they wrote? You just go around and "ditto" people's posts minus agreeing with them? Obviously you even qualified Trebb's post quite specifically by "Amening" EVERYTHING he said in post # 9.

See...unlike you...I am specific when I attempt to bring accountability to bear.

And apparently you are now trying to "weasel" out of your very words, your "amens" & your dittos.

(That doesn't speak well for ANY integrity or credibility on your part)

'Fess up.

“Don’t think the convenient snipping before and after anything that might show your subject in a positive light hasn’t gone unnoticed. “

Unnoticed by whom? Keep in mind, you’re not going to find anyone who actually approves of your religion who is a Christian. Hoodat, at best, thinks we ought to be nice, but I doubt he would claim that a person can go to their death bed without ever actually having become a Christian, and still have any chance.

Mormonism is not a Christian religion, since 1) You deny monotheism. 2) You deny the special divinity of Jesus Christ as second member of the Trinity. 3) You deny the perfect nature of the atonement to wash away ALL sins. 4) You believe that you can become a God after your death. 5) You deny the definition of grace as that which is gratuitous, but rather believe in a grace that is bought through your submission to known pedophiles and bigamists posing as Prophets. IOW, you believe in a merit based salvation, and, that, to false prophets.

From stage one, Monotheism, you’ve already put yourself out of all consideration of being a member of the body of Christ.

“Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any” (Isaiah 44:8).

Same for your becoming a deity after your death:

“... before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” (Isaiah 43:10)

We could go on, but, 2000 years of Christianity isn’t about to change in order to satisfy political correctness or your hurt feelings, you know.

“I mean if your doctrine is correct, the Holy Ghost will testify of it to anyone that would receive it and they would be converted. No problem. “

But I wonder if you even really understand the meaning of the things you say? The one thing I’ve noticed about the Mormon Apologists are is that THEY do not really provide any actual evidence or support for their positions. They rely solely on emotion and political correctness.

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.