From the usually outstanding Dean Barnett:
Allow me to echo Hugh’s sentiments on that shameful New York Times hit-piece on Mormonism. The sentence that really jumped out at me was “A good Mormon is a busy Mormon.”
If the Times were working with any other minority, there would be literally no way to finish that formulation in an inoffensive manner. Go ahead. Give it a try.
“A good Jew is a _______________ Jew."
“A good African-American is a ____________ African American.”
“A good Latino is a _____________________ Latino.”
“A good woman is a ______________________ woman.”
the Muddled Mormon Mind Meld.
To equate religious profession with race/gender is irrational (or dishonest).
The former is chosen and can be revised or rejected. The latter is permanent (despite the efforts of some to the contrary).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
After scrolling down Hugh's page, I see now why Dean would make such an appallingly inaccurate analogy.
He's just elaborating upon Hugh's malformed comparison (which comes from the same sort of "logic" as, "Don't critique Islam. What are you, racist?")
A more accurate analogy would be: "A good Christian/Jew/Buddhist/Hindu/animist/etc. is a ______________________ Christian/Jew/Buddhist/Hindu/animist/etc."
Being a member of one of those groups, such a statement would not necessarily be offensive.
(This is not an endorsement of the Times piece, by the way.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is what someone above describes as representing the Republican Party (emphasis mine):
"Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney said...he opposed implementing a FLAT INCOME TAX, calling the concept "UNFAIR.”
"...Romney’s tax talk last week coincided with the debut of a new campaign ad in which he vowed that as president, he would ensure that federal spending on programs other than defense GROWS MORE SLOWLY than the inflation rate."
DISCLAIMER required for the reading/logic impaired:
--No, I do not oppose Mitt as president on the basis of his faith.
--No, I do not see any other major candidate who matches what I want in a president.
--No, I don't think the Democrats are any better.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Could Mitt Romney be more "Christian" than Evangelicals?"
Obviously, that depends on one's definition of "Christian."
Jesus said, "If you love Me, obey My commands." How would promoting error about the person and work of Christ and His Father qualify anyone as more "Christian" than someone who believes and teaches the truth?
And how does comparing one group to another indicate anything about its truthfulness?
The only way to determine if Mormonism is "Christian" is to compare its doctrine and practice to the Word of Christ.
"Protestants and Catholics subscribe to the Nicene creed, which was initiated by the Emperor Constantine in the Fourth Century to rid Scriptures of the Apocrypha . . . ."
That is patently false.
The Apocrypha remained in the Christian Bible up to the time of the Reformation; even Luther kept it in his translation of the Scriptures into German, calling the texts useful and edifying.
The Roman Catholic Church (from which Luther was unwilling ejected) still uses it.
The Council was called to address Arius' false teachings on the nature of Christ (a heresy not too dissimilar to Mormonism's):
"The Nicene Creed was written in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicea. Hundreds of pastors and theologians were gathered at this council to respond to a false teaching that had arisen in the Church. This false teaching stated that Jesus was not true God [created, not eternal; inferior to the Father; etc.] . . . you can see all kinds of phrases that were included specifically to refute this false teaching."
The Council, representing all of Christendom, voted overwhelmingly against the heresy because it contradicted the Word of God.
It is unsurprising that Mormonism would oppose a Council and Creed defending the Bible's teachings on the nature of God, and that they must lie to do so.
Islam also attacks the Creed.
"which made reference to the oral traditions of Jewish and early Christian temple worship."
Old and New Testament?
"First Century Christian churches, in fact, continued the Jewish temple worship traditions:
. . . Baptism of youth (not infants) . . . Lay clergy . . . Anointing with holy oil . . . white clothing . . . ."
All these practices are still observed throughout Christendom today.
(And Infant Baptism was practiced, or why would the first Christians have been accused of Infanticide?)
"Jewish Temple practices were continued by Christians prior to Constantine”s corruption (see St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386) Lecture XXI)."
Much of its form was kept, since the Bible and the Church was Jewish.
Fulfilling the Mosaic ceremonial law was not retained.
"Early Christians were persecuted for keeping their practices sacred, and not allowing non-Christians to witness them . . . ."
Early Christians were persecuted by Jewish authorities for preaching the Messiah. They were persecuted by Rome for refusing to worship the emperor.
They kept their practices secret to avoid persecution.
"A literal reading of the New Testament points to God and Jesus Christ being separate beings, united in purpose. To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane . . . ?"
He was praying to His Father.
One cannot pick and choose Scripture, which teaches that Christ and His Father are One in nature, co-eternal with the Holy Spirit. Three Persons, One God.
Apparently, you would have them separate beings, which makes Mormonism polytheistic.
"The Nicene Creed”s definition of the Trinity was influenced by scribes translating the Greek manuscripts into Latin...Scribes later added "the Father, the Word and the Spirit . . . ."
Again untrue. The doctrine of the Trinity is not derived from one verse. It is summarized from the whole of Scripture.
"Members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) have concern for their ancestors” spiritual welfare, so they practice proxy baptism. (1 Corinthians 15:29 & Malachi 4:5-6)."
Your Malachi reference has nothing to do with Baptism, but with the coming of John the Baptist and the Christ.
1 Corinthians 15:29 is arguing in support of the Resurrection, not for baptism for dead ancestors. Where else does the Bible speak of such a thing? Nowhere, but it does say that "a man is appointed to die once and after that, the judgment."
"The dictionary definition of a Christian is “of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ . . . .”
Again, since Mormonism preaches a different christ and a different gospel, how can it be called in any meaningful way "Christian"?
"we consider who might be the more authentic Christian."
Here's the whole Mormon/Muslim "You Christians lost the truth and our prophet has it" argument.
"If Mitt Romney is a member of a denomination which embraces early Christian theology, he is likely more “Christian” than his detractors."
As noted throughout my posts on this topic, no Mormon can be considered as embracing "early Christian theology." "Early 'Christian' heresy," yes.
And poll data may demonstrate Christian apostasy, but it does not make the heretic orthodox.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Arius and the JW’s are the sola scriptura Christians."
"Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura" is Biblical. It is Trinitarian. It is Lutheran. It definitely does *not* belong to heretics.
That you would try to characterize both Jehovah's Witnesses (Christ is a "god", not the eternal God) and Arius (Christ is a second, or inferior God; not one essence, nature, or substance with God; not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal) as being "sola scriptura Christians" demonstrates either the magnitude of your confusion (colossal), or it indicates the depths of deception to which you are willing to sink to lead astray those ignorant of Biblical, historical, orthodox, Christian theology and history.
Stop speaking falsehood.
Every honest-minded person here should research for themselves (not using Mormon/Muslim propaganda) the Nicene Creed, the Council of Nicaea, "Sola Scriptura," etc.
What's next, "Mormons are more Catholic/Lutheran/Orthodox than Catholics/Lutherans/Orthodox"?
