EVERY Human Being that believes that Our Savior Brothers did Resurrect from His Tomb 2011 yeas or so ago as well as why He Laid His Life Down in the first place;
then YOU have been, are NOW, and will stay essentially redeemed / SIN FREE for the rest of your human life.
so act like it and stop calling / and thinking and believing yourself to still being a "sinner"!
as if being a living sinner is a greater spiritual status then the gift of our spiritual redemption all human kind has been gifted with is!
seems to me that self declared sinners just do not understand that calling themselves sinners and thinking themselves sinners is to be bring loyal to a pharisee / an apostolic imposter / a false disciples teachings as Our Savior Brothers TRUTHFUL TEACHINGS about we His Followers Living Redemption and Perfect Forgiveness is IGNORED and DISREGARDED!
why would some one/ anyone " cling " to the notion of there continuing " sinful state" when there perfectly restored forgive spiritual state is only a matter of faithfully accepting what has been done for us all 2011 or so years ago when The RESURRECTION HIMSELF picked up His Life once more after He Free Willingly laid it down as Our Eternal Ransom and spending three days in the grave?
i think most of those that prefer there " sinner identity" do so because they have been given " spiritual rocks" when they needed " spiritual fish and loaves".
sadly for us all there are many of those that would not ever accept the spiritual forgiveness made available to all human kind as a Perfect Gift of Purest Love because there father- the father of all lies - will not allow them to be other then what they are-
willing slaves and prevaricators and pervayors of as much human suffering as they are able to create.
these children of the lair are members of every faith systems earth - clergy and lay alike- they know there communities scriptures as they faithfully practices there rituals " religiously".
where as My Savior Brothers OWN are also found in every religious and seculor community on earth and we are know by our faithful , loving, courageous, compassionate and TRUTHFUL FRUIT.
when we do find a sin stain upon our soul we spiritually wash it off and walk on in Our Savior Brother Brilliant and Loving Light without another thought about what has now been left to the past.
are you do you consider your self a " sinner" ?
or
are you "FORGIVEN"?
if you are a self declared " christain" how you reply to that question will tell you if you are a member of the cult of the imposter paul-
or
a living sister/ brother of YAHWEH" S OWN SON- like me and every other one of His Sisters and Brothers!
As most of the people here know, I actually am LDS.
Simply for being LDS, and simply for being proud of my being LDS, I have:
*received a death threat
*had someone threaten to have me raped
*been cussed out
*lost friends
*been targeted by several ministers
*been targeted by a professional author
*been cyber-stalked
In fact, ask around at just about any LDS congregation, and you're almost guaranteed to hear similar stories of people who were threatened with - or who even endured - violence at the hands of "good Christians" and other such people who considered us to be a cult.
Where I live, this hostility is so transparent that a few months back someone threatened to shoot a pair of LDS missionaries even though a crew from one of the local newspapers was shadowing said pair that day and so was plainly visible.
I'm also descended from two of the "old" families within the church, meaning that the suffering and privation of the Mormon Trail and the early years of settlement within Utah are actually a part of my family history.
So as you can imagine, I'm not exactly keen on the fact that some people seem to be treating the matter so lightly. Bob Bennett was right on the money when he called out said preacher for his remarks, and I honestly wish more people would listen to him.
thanks for your reply and im sorry to hear you tell of " fellow human beings" beings oppressing and persecuting your and others communities regardless of the faith community they are a part of or even if they be fully seculor without any religious group affiliation or membership.
what i worked to show with this posting was the pure hipocracsy of one fully errant " christain community " calling another christian community " errant and cultist"- as if they themselves is not cultist too.
as far as you and your churches persecution- im sorry there is no spiritual benefit /blessing attached to it as Humanity's Savior said that that spiritual benefit and blessing is saved only for those that are persecuted FOR HIM AND HIS TRUTH AND HIS WAY OF THE NEW COVENANT ALONE!
folks that suffer for there church/ doctrine/ set of scriptures are suffering for just some other idols.
as a side note i am personally opposed to any legal marriage obligations monogamy, polygamy, whatever .... because i see all human kind as related to each other in body as well as n spirit/soul-
to me sexual marriage is at its root-physical and spiritual incest.
As most of the people here know, I actually am LDS.
Simply for being LDS, and simply for being proud of my being LDS, I have:
*received a death threat
*had someone threaten to have me raped
*been cussed out
*lost friends
*been targeted by several ministers
*been targeted by a professional author
*been cyber-stalked
In fact, ask around at just about any LDS congregation, and you're almost guaranteed to hear similar stories of people who were threatened with - or who even endured - violence at the hands of "good Christians" and other such people who considered us to be a cult.
Where I live, this hostility is so transparent that a few months back someone threatened to shoot a pair of LDS missionaries even though a crew from one of the local newspapers was shadowing said pair that day and so was plainly visible.
I'm also descended from two of the "old" families within the church, meaning that the suffering and privation of the Mormon Trail and the early years of settlement within Utah are actually a part of my family history.
So as you can imagine, I'm not exactly keen on the fact that some people seem to be treating the matter so lightly. Bob Bennett was right on the money when he called out said preacher for his remarks, and I honestly wish more people would listen to him.
To me, the question of whether LDS has strayed so far from the beliefs and principles of its parent Christian religion as to qualify as a new, separate religion in it own right (much as Christianity separated from Judaism long ago) is an entirely different question from either Christian bigotry toward Mormons (of the kind that Ironhold describes) or Christian dominionism (i.e., the view that the US is a Christian nation that ought to be governed only by sufficiently devout Christians according to Christian beliefs and principles).
There's also the difference between the anthropological and sociological use of the word "cult" to describe any devout religious community, especially a newly formed one, and the colloqual use of the word as a term of disparagement. The former usage is benign -- in that sense, it was the cult of YHWH that invaded Canaan, the cult of Apollo that supported the oracle at Delphi, the cult of Athena that built the Parthenon, and the cult of Jesus that broke away from Judaism -- but the latter usually expresses extreme disapproval, sometimes even contempt.
I think the pastor Robert Jeffress was within his rights to express the view that LDS is really a different religion than Christianity. I even tend to see it that way myself. However, clearly there was also an ugly undercurrent of contempt, bigotry and dominionism in his remarks, and in the context in which he expressed them, that IMHO was reprehensible, and was indefensible on both orthodox Christian theological grounds as well as constitutional political grounds. It is that ugly undercurrent, and not the issue of whether LDS is or is not Christian, that everyone has been responding to.
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
"Christ will regenerate all things; through Him all things will be purged, and return into eternal life. And when the Son shall deliver up the kingdom to the Father, all things will be God; that is, all things will still exist, but God will exist in them, and they will be full of Him." Fabius Manus Victorinus, c. 350 AD
issac you big word smith/ intellectual show off you- i love your stuff!
of course you are stop on once again- and it is the " stone casting tone " of that christan frauds statment that shows he and his " team" as being far off The Saviors Example and commanded Doctrine to:
" love each other as i love you " and " first remove the beam ( in this case bible book) from your own eye and then you will be able to see the stickino in your neighbors eye so as to help get it out" and " by your love you will be known as MY FOLLOWER"... conversely by there hate and falsehood we can tell that those practitioners are NOT HIS FOLLOWERS
to me it was like hearing the pot calling another pot "a pot".
again thank very very much for your very very thoughtful reply.
To me, the question of whether LDS has strayed so far from the beliefs and principles of its parent Christian religion as to qualify as a new, separate religion in it own right (much as Christianity separated from Judaism long ago) is an entirely different question from either Christian bigotry toward Mormons (of the kind that Ironhold describes) or Christian dominionism (i.e., the view that the US is a Christian nation that ought to be governed only by sufficiently devout Christians according to Christian beliefs and principles).
There's also the difference between the anthropological and sociological use of the word "cult" to describe any devout religious community, especially a newly formed one, and the colloqual use of the word as a term of disparagement. The former usage is benign -- in that sense, it was the cult of YHWH that invaded Canaan, the cult of Apollo that supported the oracle at Delphi, the cult of Athena that built the Parthenon, and the cult of Jesus that broke away from Judaism -- but the latter usually expresses extreme disapproval, sometimes even contempt.
I think the pastor Robert Jeffress was within his rights to express the view that LDS is really a different religion than Christianity. I even tend to see it that way myself. However, clearly there was also an ugly undercurrent of contempt, bigotry and dominionism in his remarks, and in the context in which he expressed them, that IMHO was reprehensible, and was indefensible on both orthodox Christian theological grounds as well as constitutional political grounds. It is that ugly undercurrent, and not the issue of whether LDS is or is not Christian, that everyone has been responding to.
There is a reason why our Constitution does not allow for a religious test of our public officials. Romney's particular religion should not have any bearing on his suitability for the Presidency.
I think the one reason why Jeffries may be using this tactic is because the Christian dominionists have so much riding on this election. They want to take over government entirely. Perry (who is a dominionist of the higherst order) has not been doing as well as other dominionists would have liiked. Consequently they have had to resort to playing dirty.
Martin Luther once wrote he would prefer an athiest or even a Muslim as the prince over him as long as the prince would be fair in his governance.
The LDS has been changing some of its positions lately. I found this article very interestingL
at the risk of this thread falling into a political dialog let me reply with twp ideas-
republicans seem bent on every victory they can get- even agenst other republicans
and
i say this with the deepest sorrow as far as the american idea of honest government - folks coming together to look out for one another helping all to find there best happiness and relief / recovery from the harsh effects of harsh stormed that come everyone's way from time to time is over as " the citizens united s/c ruling in 2010".
that foul ruling that republicans benefactors wanted and democrats allowed to unfold has made america/ american politics / war making... calls made only for those that are very well monied-
no election from here on out is going to change that- the die is cast and done is done.
however " boycotting all american elections " might.
There is a reason why our Constitution does not allow for a religious test of our public officials. Romney's particular religion should not have any bearing on his suitability for the Presidency.
I think the one reason why Jeffries may be using this tactic is because the Christian dominionists have so much riding on this election. They want to take over government entirely. Perry (who is a dominionist of the higherst order) has not been doing as well as other dominionists would have liiked. Consequently they have had to resort to playing dirty.
Martin Luther once wrote he would prefer an athiest or even a Muslim as the prince over him as long as the prince would be fair in his governance.
The LDS has been changing some of its positions lately. I found this article very interestingL
To me, the question of whether LDS has strayed so far from the beliefs and principles of its parent Christian religion as to qualify as a new, separate religion in it own right (much as Christianity separated from Judaism long ago) is an entirely different question from either Christian bigotry toward Mormons (of the kind that Ironhold describes) or Christian dominionism (i.e., the view that the US is a Christian nation that ought to be governed only by sufficiently devout Christians according to Christian beliefs and principles).
There's also the difference between the anthropological and sociological use of the word "cult" to describe any devout religious community, especially a newly formed one, and the colloqual use of the word as a term of disparagement. The former usage is benign -- in that sense, it was the cult of YHWH that invaded Canaan, the cult of Apollo that supported the oracle at Delphi, the cult of Athena that built the Parthenon, and the cult of Jesus that broke away from Judaism -- but the latter usually expresses extreme disapproval, sometimes even contempt.
I think the pastor Robert Jeffress was within his rights to express the view that LDS is really a different religion than Christianity. I even tend to see it that way myself. However, clearly there was also an ugly undercurrent of contempt, bigotry and dominionism in his remarks, and in the context in which he expressed them, that IMHO was reprehensible, and was indefensible on both orthodox Christian theological grounds as well as constitutional political grounds. It is that ugly undercurrent, and not the issue of whether LDS is or is not Christian, that everyone has been responding to.
The LDS is no more a cult than the Unitarians, John Quincy Adams was a Unitarian.
For those who have faith, no explanation is neccessary. For those who have no faith, no explanation is possible.
St. Thomas Aquinas
If one turns his ear from hearing the Law, even his prayer is an abomination. Proverbs 28:9
The LDS is no more a cult than the Unitarians, John Quincy Adams was a Unitarian.
In what sense are you using the word? When Baptists call Unitarians a "cult", they usually mean it contemptuously.
UUs have no creed or dogma, so they're not fanatically devoted to a single set of beliefs or rituals. They are orgainized democratically and congregationally, not hierarchically, so they do not slavishly obey an authoritarian leader. So they aren't a "cult" in either of those senses.
Unitarians did emerge out of the Congregational Calvinist corner of the Protestant tent after being rejected on doctrinal grounds by more orthodox Calvinists, so they have something in common with Mormons as a new religious movement, but then again so did the Baptists. (In fact, Baptists, Congregationalists and Unitarians trace their denominational roots to exactly the same dissenting church in Gainsborough, England. Of the three, Baptists were the first to denounce doctrinal conformity and insist on freedom of conscience, although many of them seem to have backslid lately on that formerly foundational point.)
Some individual UUs consider themselves Christian, some don't. The ones who do don't get as much rejection from other Christians as Mormons do, in my observation. Objectively, in the sea of doctrinal differences that characterizes Protestantism, quibbles about christology and soteriology that can be authentically traced to the early Church are relatively minor compared to recognizing an entirely new new body of scripture and the doctrine that derives from it, and requiring new forms of ritual practice. I would say that, while both UU and LDS are heterodox, the Mormon apple falls far further from the mother tree than the christological Unitarian or soteriological Universalist apple does, so LDS may indeed be "more of a cult" in terms of its particular combination of doctrinal heterodoxy, doctrinal uniformity, and authoritarian governance.
You're right about JQA being Unitarian. So were his father John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Millard Fillmore, William Howard Taft, Oliver Wendell Holmes (buth father and son), and many others. More recently there have been Elliott Richardson, Adlai Stevenson, William Cohen, Pete Stark, Mike Gravel, and Henry Cabot Lodge. Holding dissenting religious views was not a disqualifier for any of them, so why should it be for Romney? -- although perhaps that's really your point. (Speaking of Lodge, in 1960 the GOP ticket was comprised of a Quaker and a Unitarian, so there's even precedent in recent times for GOP nominees with doubtful Christian affiliations, but that was before conservative evangelicals grabbed the party by the throat.)
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
"Christ will regenerate all things; through Him all things will be purged, and return into eternal life. And when the Son shall deliver up the kingdom to the Father, all things will be God; that is, all things will still exist, but God will exist in them, and they will be full of Him." Fabius Manus Victorinus, c. 350 AD
The LDS is no more a cult than the Unitarians, John Quincy Adams was a Unitarian.
In what sense are you using the word? When Baptists call Unitarians a "cult", they usually mean it contemptuously.
UUs have no creed or dogma, so they're not fanatically devoted to a single set of beliefs or rituals. They are orgainized democratically and congregationally, not hierarchically, so they do not slavishly obey an authoritarian leader. So they aren't a "cult" in either of those senses.
Unitarians did emerge out of the Congregational Calvinist corner of the Protestant tent after being rejected on doctrinal grounds by more orthodox Calvinists, so they have something in common with Mormons as a new religious movement, but then again so did the Baptists. (In fact, Baptists, Congregationalists and Unitarians trace their denominational roots to exactly the same dissenting church in Gainsborough, England. Of the three, Baptists were the first to denounce doctrinal conformity and insist on freedom of conscience, although many of them seem to have backslid lately on that formerly foundational point.)
Some individual UUs consider themselves Christian, some don't. The ones who do don't get as much rejection from other Christians as Mormons do, in my observation. Objectively, in the sea of doctrinal differences that characterizes Protestantism, quibbles about christology and soteriology that can be authentically traced to the early Church are relatively minor compared to recognizing an entirely new new body of scripture and the doctrine that derives from it, and requiring new forms of ritual practice. I would say that, while both UU and LDS are heterodox, the Mormon apple falls far further from the mother tree than the christological Unitarian or soteriological Universalist apple does, so LDS may indeed be "more of a cult" in terms of its particular combination of doctrinal heterodoxy, doctrinal uniformity, and authoritarian governance.
You're right about JQA being Unitarian. So were his father John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Millard Fillmore, William Howard Taft, Oliver Wendell Holmes (buth father and son), and many others. More recently there have been Elliott Richardson, Adlai Stevenson, William Cohen, Pete Stark, Mike Gravel, and Henry Cabot Lodge. Holding dissenting religious views was not a disqualifier for any of them, so why should it be for Romney? -- although perhaps that's really your point. (Speaking of Lodge, in 1960 the GOP ticket was comprised of a Quaker and a Unitarian, so there's even precedent in recent times for GOP nominees with doubtful Christian affiliations, but that was before conservative evangelicals grabbed the party by the throat.)
Nixon was a Quaker, and got elected twice. Agnew, alas, was an Episcopalian.
The devil can quote Scripture for his purpose; and the text of Scripture which he now most commonly quotes is, “The Kingdom of heaven is within you.” That text has been the stay and support of more Pharisees and prigs and self-righteous spiritual bullies than all the dogmas in creation; it has served to identify self-satisfaction with the peace that passes all understanding.
